Topic: 67 Rear Spring Markings Discussion

[Paperback Writer]

I too have been studying 1967 Mustang Rear Leaf Spring Codes/Markings for a long, long time…

I was very fortunate to find the original Green and Silver markings on the C7ZA-5556-AC springs that were installed on my ’67 SJ 390 GTA Convertible (same springs as ruppstang's http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17316.msg109263#msg109263) – so that’s a confirmed data point. Attached below is a ROUGH DRAFT of my findings/assumptions in chart form.  Please do not consider this chart as 100% accurate - as there are a couple of known anomalies, and a few educated guesses in it – but I wanted to post it here merely to solicit feedback from the rest of the group, and maybe, hopefully, create a useful document in the future.  The more eyes on this, the better!

My methodology…
Listings shown in bold black contain data pulled directly from Build Sheets (mostly from Metuchen, but a few from Dearborn and San Jose as well).  It appears that all three plants used the same color coding system, but they may have applied the markings at different locations on the springs.

For the entries taken directly from the Build Sheets, I have entered the earliest and latest planned assembly dates shown on the sheets.  As we all know, these do not necessarily reflect the actual assembly dates, but they’re all we have.

Next to the Build Sheet dates, I have entered the earliest and latest “effective” dates from the various Ford MPCs.   It appears that the Build Sheet dates seem line up with the MPC effective dates, but I’m sure we’ll find some more anomalies as we go along.

Perhaps the biggest leap-of-faith is my attempt to align the Rear Spring Markings from the Build Sheets with the Part Numbers from the MPCs – and this is where I am looking for ALL of the experts here to poke holes in my theories, point out errors, typos, and/or provide additional confirmations of Markings and Part Number parings to add more clarity.  For example, I’ve seen Part Number “C7ZA-5556-AE” mentioned on this forum a few times, and I still need to find a place for it in the chart (I suspect it is an "ORG PNK", and belongs with ‘5556-AU, and ‘5556-AV in the Part Numbers column) - can anybody confirm this?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[J_Speegle]

I too have been studying 1967 Mustang Rear Leaf Spring Codes/Markings for a long, long time…

You have been busy given the twists and turns this subject provides.

Don't think the springs are marked differently based on plants but instead a result of the supplying sub contracted who supplied the particular plant. and should go hand in hand with time period and the stamping design/pattern of the spring.  Another column for the spread sheet

Perhaps the biggest leap-of-faith is my attempt to align the Rear Spring Markings from the Build Sheets with the Part Numbers from the MPCs –...................

Agree this is a great leap given that the MPCs don't show what was originally used. 

Would ask for a little clarification on a detail - sorry if you already covered it in your post

- In the spring part number column what is the importance of the different colors of text?

- You list a "E" in some columns in bold. Is this a code you found in the box on line B?  IF so I think I have some exports with out that code

- Can I take it from the spread sheet that the spread sheet contains information from 26 buildsheets (of the 58) the rest is gleaned from different MPC's?

Sure there will be more questions and discussions as we start to go through it. May separate the discussion of all the rear spring marks out of this thread that is more about a specific application to keep it clean as well as we can anticipate this discussion to take flight 

[Paperback Writer]

You have been busy given the twists and turns this subject provides.

Don't think the springs are marked differently based on plants but instead a result of the supplying sub contracted who supplied the particular plant. and should go hand in hand with time period and the stamping design/pattern of the spring.  Another column for the spread sheet

Thanks - I'll make a note of that!

Agree this is a great leap given that the MPCs don't show what was originally used. 

Would ask for a little clarification on a detail - sorry if you already covered it in your post

- In the spring part number column what is the importance of the different colors of text?

The part numbers shown in red are from the MPCs.  The numbers shown in bold blue are confirmed assembly line part numbers.  For example, the "C7ZA-5556-AC" entry came from my own 390 GTA Convertible, and it had Green and Silver markings on the bottom leaf.

- You list a "E" in some columns in bold. Is this a code you found in the box on line B?  IF so I think I have some exports with out that code

The "E" call-outs in the H.D. Suspension column, and the "D" and "E" call-outs in the Handling Pkg Type column come directly from Section C, Columns 9 & 10 respectively from the Build Sheets - see attached image below...

- Can I take it from the spread sheet that the spread sheet contains information from 26 buildsheets (of the 58) the rest is gleaned from different MPC's?

It actually has data from 44 Build Sheets (plus the findings on my actual car).  The column with the header "# of Data Points" has a tally of the number of Build Sheets with the same information.  For example, on the "(63) Fastback / (S) 390-4V / "D" (Improved/GT)" entry, there were 7 Build Sheets for cars equipped this way (with the earliest Build Sheet date of 12/21/1966, and the latest of 8/1/1967).  All of them listed "ORG WIT" in the rear spring section of the Build Sheet (Section H, Columns 8-14).  I have also seen an example of an actual spring with Orange and White markings with the Part Number of "C7ZA-5556-AS", so as mentioned above, that's why that number is highlighted in bold blue text.

Sure there will be more questions and discussions as we start to go through it. May separate the discussion of all the rear spring marks out of this thread that is more about a specific application to keep it clean as well as we can anticipate this discussion to take flight 

Sounds good - thanks Jeff!

[Bossbill]

Can't give you a color as I haven't done a dissection on them yet, but can confirm my 67 (see sig) has the C7ZA-AR springs.

[196667Bob]

I was going to make a Reply under Richard's thread  "67 GTA 289 Coupe, Spring Codes and Markings, San Jose", that it appeared that we had exhausted all of the MPC's and OSI's, and still had questions, as well as bringing in all 1967 applications into the mix (which can hardly be avoided when researching a specific application).. I was going to suggest that the next step would be researching Marti Reports, Build Sheets, and cars themselves. Then I saw your Reply under Richard's Topic (since rightfully moved away on "its own" here), and saw that you had one heck of a start on that, to which I'm sure you would attest to has been no easy task, and you are definitely to be commended for that.
I think it is interesting that your sheet did not include the AE Spring that John posted a picture of, and that we could find no listing of either. Possibly because John's car has an earlier build date than any other of the 289-2V, GT Fastbacks that you have listed ?

Since going through all of the MPC's and OSI's, I have also gone through my 8/66 Sales Brochure, Showroom Options Book, Buyer's Digest, Preliminary Shop Manual, Shop Manual, Salesman's Price Book, Parts and Service Merchandising News, Shop Tips, and TSB's between August 1966 and August 1967, all to try to see if any more light could be shed on this subject. Result ; nothing eye-opening.

All that being said, before some of our readers will, hopefully, provide some documented information to help "fill in the blanks", I have a few questions/comments for your consideration :

1)  While I "surmised" that the "improved handling" noted in the MPC's was actually the "Special Handling Package" furnished with GT's only, I could find nothing to confirm this. Did you use Marti Reports, Build Sheets or what in order to confirm ?

2)  The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".

3)  I think it would be beneficial to add a column for "Spring Assembly Part Number (5560)".

4)  Do the dashes (-) in the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handing Package Type" signify " "unknown" or "Standard" ? Possibly a "?", and "Std." ?

5)  Finally,since besides "Standard Springs", Springs with the "Special Handling Package", and Springs with the "Competition Handling Package", different Springs were also available with the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option, I think the column you have noted "H.D.Suspension" is confusing. While you apparently haven't come across any with just the "Heavy Duty Suspension" yet, it was an Option and this could cause confusion "down the road". Possibly this could be noted "Type of Suspension", or something similar ?

Again, thanks for all of the work you have done on the document to this point. Hopefully, by Posting it mow, others will be able to furnish you additional information to reduce the burden on you, and get closer to a complete document.

Bob

[Paperback Writer]

Can't give you a color as I haven't done a dissection on them yet, but can confirm my 67 (see sig) has the C7ZA-AR springs.

Thanks Bill - please let me know if you find any additional information...

I was going to make a Reply under Richard's thread  "67 GTA 289 Coupe, Spring Codes and Markings, San Jose", that it appeared that we had exhausted all of the MPC's and OSI's, and still had questions, as well as bringing in all 1967 applications into the mix (which can hardly be avoided when researching a specific application).. I was going to suggest that the next step would be researching Marti Reports, Build Sheets, and cars themselves. Then I saw your Reply under Richard's Topic (since rightfully moved away on "its own" here), and saw that you had one heck of a start on that, to which I'm sure you would attest to has been no easy task, and you are definitely to be commended for that.

Thanks Bob!

I think it is interesting that your sheet did not include the AE Spring that John posted a picture of, and that we could find no listing of either. Possibly because John's car has an earlier build date than any other of the 289-2V, GT Fastbacks that you have listed ?

I did see John's posting, but I wasn't sure how to interpret his comment that said that the markings had been sand blasted off back in 1981.  As I said in my original posting, I think they are probably "ORG PNK" as well, but wanted to get a consensus from the group before I call it out as "Confirmed"...

Since going through all of the MPC's and OSI's, I have also gone through my 8/66 Sales Brochure, Showroom Options Book, Buyer's Digest, Preliminary Shop Manual, Shop Manual, Salesman's Price Book, Parts and Service Merchandising News, Shop Tips, and TSB's between August 1966 and August 1967, all to try to see if any more light could be shed on this subject. Result ; nothing eye-opening.

Thanks for checking!

All that being said, before some of our readers will, hopefully, provide some documented information to help "fill in the blanks", I have a few questions/comments for your consideration :

1)  While I "surmised" that the "improved handling" noted in the MPC's was actually the "Special Handling Package" furnished with GT's only, I could find nothing to confirm this. Did you use Marti Reports, Build Sheets or what in order to confirm ?

When I was first putting the sheet together, I actually had a separate column for keeping track of the GT/GTA option, but it doesn't seem to be a determining factor - instead, it is the "Handling Pkg Type" field on the Build Sheets.  The "D" indicator in this field on the Build Sheets (Section C, Column 10), is present for all GT/GTA vehicles, plus 4 additional cars that did not have the GT/GTA option.  Since the GT/GTA package included the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option (which was also available as a separate option for all V8 cars without the GT/GTA package), I have to conclude that the "Improved Handling Package" mentioned in the MPCs refers to the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option.

2)  The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".

Yeah, it seems a little redundant, as the Competition Handling Package was only available on K-Code and S-Code cars, and they had to have the GT/GTA package as a mandatory option well.  I don't have any Build Sheets for a Competition Handling Package vehicle, so I just made a "Competition" notation in both the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Pkg Type" columns as a placeholder until the actual Build Sheet indicator is found...

3)  I think it would be beneficial to add a column for "Spring Assembly Part Number (5560)".

Noted - I'll add a column!

4)  Do the dashes (-) in the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handing Package Type" signify " "unknown" or "Standard" ? Possibly a "?", and "Std." ?

The dashes were meant to indicate blanks.  I'll clear them out from future iterations of the sheet to avoid confusion.

5)  Finally,since besides "Standard Springs", Springs with the "Special Handling Package", and Springs with the "Competition Handling Package", different Springs were also available with the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option, I think the column you have noted "H.D.Suspension" is confusing. While you apparently haven't come across any with just the "Heavy Duty Suspension" yet, it was an Option and this could cause confusion "down the road". Possibly this could be noted "Type of Suspension", or something similar ?

See my answer to question 1.  The "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Pkg Type" headers on my columns come directly from Build Sheets (see below), but I agree they are confusing as the call-out for the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option seems to be called out by a "D" in the "Handling Pkg Type" column (C10), and the only data entries I've found in the "H.D. Suspension" column (C9) are "E"s for the Export vehicles.  Now that I've explained the method to my madness, perhaps I could combine the two columns into a single one called "Suspension Type", and then just use the words "Standard", "Heavy Duty", "Competition" and "Export" to differentiate them...

[196667Bob]

First, thanks for all of your explanations and answers to my questions. Also for including a copy of one of the Build Sheets (I have the one for my '66, but haven't found the one for my '67 yet, which I would expect to be there since my Dad purchased it from the original Owner in 1981; hopefully when I remove the front buckets this summer, I'll find it there).

Based on what you have documented in regard to the "Improved Handling Package" being the same as the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, this now confirms what I had just suspected. The only question remaining on this issue is how did the 4 non-GT cars end up with the Special Handling Package ??

In the answer that you gave to my first question, " When I was first putting the sheet together, I actually had a separate column for keeping track of the GT/GTA option, but it doesn't seem to be a determining factor - instead, it is the "Handling Pkg Type" field on the Build Sheets.  The "D" indicator in this field on the Build Sheets (Section C, Column 10), is present for all GT/GTA vehicles, plus 4 additional cars that did not have the GT/GTA option.  Since the GT/GTA package included the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option (which was also available as a separate option for all V8 cars without the GT/GTA package),I have to conclude that the ["Improved Handling Package" mentioned in the MPCs refers to the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option.]", I agree that the HD Suspension Option was part of the Special Handling Package, but, initially, was going to take exception to the part of your answer that I have [bracketed], that they were the same. I was basing my "taking exception" on two things ; first, the description of the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option noted in the Showroom Options Book(that notes that the "Heavy Duty Suspension Option included "Springs and Shocks"  no "larger diameter stabilizer bar" mentioned), and the fact that the Build Sheet you attached shows separate columns (9 and 10) for "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Package Type", thus implying they were separate. However, in looking further into my information, Specifically the Salesman's Price Book, it notes that the Heavy Duty Suspension Option, for $30.64, included Springs, Shocks, and a larger diameter stabilizer bar (possibly initially it wasn't to include this, and later determined that it should ?). Whatever the reason, I would now agree with your statement that the Special(Improved) Handling Package" and the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option were one in the same. Thus the Heavy Duty Suspension Column (9) only being checked if the Heavy Duty Suspension Option were being ordered by itself (no GT Option), and both columns 9 and 10 being checked if the GT Option was selected.
That being said, I think it's interesting that in all you have looked at and documented, you have not come across any that had only the Heavy Duty Suspension (possibly owners thought, or were "directed" to think by Salesmen), that for only another $170, they could get the Heavy Duty Suspension, plus all of the other benefits in the GT Option ?).
Unfortunately, Kevin Marti does not list any of the Suspension Packages in the "Options" section of his "Mustang By the Numbers" book, but he may have the information, and might be worth checking with him.

Thanks again for all of your help and considerations of my comments. Hopefully now you'll be able to get some input from others to help solve the "Mysteries of the Springs".

Bob

[Paperback Writer]

Thanks for the additional information Bob!

Based upon the earlier feedback, attached below is "Version 2" of the chart.  I've corrected a few data entry errors I made in the first sheet (like listing placeholders for A-Code and C-Code cars with the Competition suspension - duh, can't happen!), added additional columns, and labeled the rows and columns to make it a little easier to discuss specific items on the sheets...

I have also provided an alternate sorting by Paint Markings as well...

Kevin

PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well.  Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct?  This could be a key piece of information, as the only other entries I have for cars with these paint markings were Export cars.  It may turn out that at least some of the Export cars, the Shelbys, and perhaps the Competition Handling cars were set-up similarly for their respective body style/engine options...

[67gta289]

I did see John's posting, but I wasn't sure how to interpret his comment that said that the markings had been sand blasted off back in 1981.  As I said in my original posting, I think they are probably "ORG PNK" as well, but wanted to get a consensus from the group before I call it out as "Confirmed"...

That is correct.  I can say based on date stamps that the AE rear springs are original to my C code GTA, but they were sandblasted in 1981 and that evidence is long gone.  Being an SJ car, with no build sheet found, I don't have codes from that source.

John

[Bossbill]

I used some Evaporust and a brush and found my paint code. As noted, car is 67 GT350.
The -AR springs are a Rusty/Red/Brown color as shown in the attached pic. According to your sheet this would most likely be "Brown".

Ignore the yellow grease paint, as I marked these springs to provide easy identification in the parts rack.

[ruppstang]

Thanks for the additional information Bob!

Based upon the earlier feedback, attached below is "Version 2" of the chart.  I've corrected a few data entry errors I made in the first sheet (like listing placeholders for A-Code and C-Code cars with the Competition suspension - duh, can't happen!), added additional columns, and labeled the rows and columns to make it a little easier to discuss specific items on the sheets...

I have also provided an alternate sorting by Paint Markings as well...

Kevin

PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well.  Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct?  This could be a key piece of information, as the only other entries I have for cars with these paint markings were Export cars.  It may turn out that at least some of the Export cars, the Shelbys, and perhaps the Competition Handling cars were set-up similarly for their respective body style/engine options...

I can confirm the our 68 GT350 has brown stripes for rear on it's build sheet.
I can also confirm that 68 AU springs have Pink/Orange stripes
Marty 

[J_Speegle]

PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well.  Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct? 

As a suggestion you might want to add a column as to what engineering numbers we can confirm for applications. Seems you have listed (may have missed it completely) only details from paperwork and documents.  Also you might want to include a column to record box B 13 codes. This would help with cross referencing and when we only have the upper portion legible on a 67 buildsheet.

Never seen brown marks on a C7AZ-AR spring and not certain those were the springs used for the whole production year for the GT350 application.  And the ones I have pictures of don't show colors similar to what BossBill posted.

Guess I seeing a possible problem tying colors directly to applications  sort of side stepping the spring identification number/step

Shelby's received add/delete sheets that listed what springs they were to be equipped with on paper and what they were changed to (if changed) on paper and used to build the cars.

[J_Speegle]

2)  The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".

The GT appears IMHO to refer to GT350's and 500's. Believe there are similar references in other sections of some MPC's

Based on what you have documented in regard to the "Improved Handling Package" being the same as the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, this now confirms what I had just suspected. The only question remaining on this issue is how did the 4 non-GT cars end up with the Special Handling Package ??

It was likely simply ordered. Have owned a number of cars were the owner apparently didn't want all the gingerbread just the suspension

... and the fact that the Build Sheet you attached shows separate columns (9 and 10) for "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Package Type", thus implying they were separate.

Respectfully disagree. There are many boxes on the buildsheets that do not apply to Mustangs and their assembly. Assuming that two boxes are for use on the same car IMHO can't be done.  You'll find boxes for tailgate, viscus fan, wide bumper, police & taxi package..... and other items on the sheets.

[J_Speegle]

The "E" call-outs in the H.D. Suspension column, and the "D" and "E" call-outs in the Handling Pkg Type column come directly from Section C, Columns 9 & 10 respectively from the Build Sheets - see attached image below...

I have no digital copies of buildsheets with both boxes marked and none using the "E" coding in either of the boxes though I do have one export example it shows standard suspension which seems odd. Unfortunately we don't know where it was destined for.  Have a few really odd balls but they will only muddy the waters

[196667Bob]

The GT appears IMHO to refer to GT350's and 500's. Believe there are similar references in other sections of some MPC's


It was likely simply ordered. Have owned a number of cars were the owner apparently didn't want all the gingerbread just the suspension


Respectfully disagree. There are many boxes on the buildsheets that do not apply to Mustangs and their assembly. Assuming that two boxes are for use on the same car IMHO can't be done.  You'll find boxes for tailgate, viscus fan, wide bumper, police & taxi package..... and other items on the sheets.

Jeff : So your second response that "it was simply ordered", then supports my original statements that the Heavy Duty Suspension was a "stand alone" Option that could be ordered by any car with a V8, and thus only the "H.D." box on the Build Sheet checked (X'd). Correct ? Following this line of thinking, then the Build Sheets for the 4 non - GT cars in Kevin's Spreadsheet should have only the "H.D." box marked ; correct ?

On your comment in which you "Respectfully disagree", I based my comment on the Build Sheet that Kevin provided that shows the "E" in both the "H.D." box and in the "Handling Package" box. If I understand correctly, you are saying that those two boxes should never both be "X'd" on the same Build Sheet ; correct ?

It seems that as Kevin has found, a "D" under "Handling Package" signifies the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, that some other letter in this box should signify the "Competition Handling Package". Do you have any Build Sheets that show what this is ?

It seems, like, IMHO, before we go "full bore" into this "exercise", we need to reach mutual, substantiated agreements, as to what the parameters are, and should be.

Bob