Topic: 67 Rear Spring Markings Discussion

[Paperback Writer]

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

Here are two examples Jeff...
(Both are DSO 92 export cars)

[Bossbill]

SNIP ...

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.

At first I thought we could lump in Shelbys with the "Generic Competition Package."
But a review of add/deletes on "Special Vehicle Order and Parts Specification" dated 4/25/67 specifically notes the items to which Jeff refers. Noted that my car is about 2 months earlier than this document.

Instead of calling out the generic package (maybe there wasn't one?), the add/deletes refer to special front springs, special shocks, special front swaybar and special rear spring.
The document says that (in this run of Shelbys) the C7ZA-5556-AA rear springs are to be removed and C7ZA-5556-AR springs are to added at Ford.

As for color I found this same color on the other spring 2" from the end on the smallest of the 4.

[Paperback Writer]

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 ?

Yes, the Heavy Duty Suspension option could be ordered with any V-8 separately from the GT package for $30.64.  It is my opinion, that the Heavy Duty Suspension call-out was in box C10 of the Build Sheets (with the header of "HANDLING PKG TYPE") with a letter "D".  The only entries I've ever found in the C9 box (with the header of "H.D. SUSPENSION") is the letter "E" (see Reply #15 above), which I believe stands for "Export"...

[J_Speegle]

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 ?

Can't confirm that without other support info. I may have missed it somewhere in all that has been written so far - if so sorry.  If you have a non-GT example marked that way that would help. I don't.   What are you using on the buildsheet to indicate if the car was a GT or GTA  and in turn a non-GT/GTA?

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 ?

Same as the above

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 ?

No I accept that you have examples of both boxes marked. I don't - just reporting and adding what I have to the discussion

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 ?

Comp cars are rare and we accept that at least one assembly plant didn't often include buildsheets in the finished cars. These two factors work against us having or finding such sheets. At this time I don't currently have any I can identify as Mustangs with comp suspension

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.

Agreed. There are allot of moving parts in this subject and we're working through an imperfect medium so if we work from those areas where we can agree and have supporting documentation that can be cross referenced this will leave us with a focus group of those that will challenge us or may have re remain unanswered for a time

[J_Speegle]

Here are two examples Jeff...
(Both are DSO 92 export cars)

From these I can make out from your two examples

xx01C237979  Spring (B13): 5   HD Susp (C9): E    Handling Pkg (C10): E
Note: Springs and shocks match Comp Suspension applications

7T02S214691 Spring (B13): 9   HD Susp (C9): E    Handling Pkg (C10): E
Note: Springs and shocks match Comp Suspension applications

...............The only entries I've ever found in the C9 box (with the header of "H.D. SUSPENSION") is the letter "E" (see Reply #15 above), which I believe stands for "Export"...

My two export examples have different markings but both suggest GT style /Handling Package rather than Comp Suspension


7T01A1187xx Spring (B13): 6   HD Susp (C9): (Blank)    Handling Pkg (C10): D
Note: Springs and shocks match GT applications

7T03S1753xx Spring (B13): 5   HD Susp (C9): (Blank)?    Handling Pkg (C10): ?  though other info suggests it was a D
Note: Springs and shocks match GT applications






One difference off the top is that your two examples are from later in the year (Post Jan 67) and both of mine are earlier (Pre Jan 67)

[Paperback Writer]

Thanks Jeff,

Yes, it could be a simple case of "early vs. late" on the export cars...

Attached below is an updated chart with new columns for the B13, C9, and C10 boxes from the build sheets.  I was able to clear up my two "anomaly" cars from the earlier sheets as well.  The hardtop anomaly was actually an export car, and the convertible anomaly was a typo on my part (I had entered the spring markings as "SILVER" when it was actually "2SILVER").

I've also included a summary comparison chart of the B13 and H8-H13 boxes.

[J_Speegle]

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.

Think this needs adjustment or correction since the car assembly plants did not mark the springs but instead the providers did and that may have been different sources or in the case of the rear springs different plants from the same company marking them differently  though my study of paint marks suggest that thy were  pretty consistent during the same periods of time though the stamping are different (horizontal and vertical for example)

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.

To continue the discussion how are you confirming (using buildsheet data) that are particular color marking listed on a buildsheet is a specific (stamping) spring? Is this solely based on the service replacement info from the MPC's?

On Rough Draft #3 where did the assembly line numbers (Line P) come from?

Just continuing the discussion. 

[Paperback Writer]

Think this needs adjustment or correction since the car assembly plants did not mark the springs but instead the providers did and that may have been different sources or in the case of the rear springs different plants from the same company marking them differently  though my study of paint marks suggest that thy were  pretty consistent during the same periods of time though the stamping are different (horizontal and vertical for example)

Fair point about the suppliers doing the marking the springs, and not the actual assembly plants.  However, while I've only seen a few non-Metuchen buildsheets (2 each for both Dearborn and SJ), they do indicate the same color-coding system was used for the markings at those plants as well.  So I think we can at least say that colors used by the spring suppliers were consistent (and therefore consistent at all three assembly plants), but the actual paint marking location on the springs or method of application of the paint (bottom leaf splotches vs long leaf stripes, etc.) was not consistent between suppliers...

To continue the discussion how are you confirming (using buildsheet data) that are particular color marking listed on a buildsheet is a specific (stamping) spring? Is this solely based on the service replacement info from the MPC's?

On Rough Draft #3 where did the assembly line numbers (Line P) come from?

Just continuing the discussion.

The "assembly line part numbers" are from confirmed reports where people have found paint markings on their springs and they have provided the number on the lower leaf of the spring as well.  For example, the C7ZA-5556-AC number was (and still is) on the springs of my own car, and I also found Silver and Green paint splotches as well.  So far, we only have four of these, but hopefully others on this forum will be able to contribute additional data points.

[J_Speegle]

............. So I think we can at least say that colors used by the spring suppliers were consistent (and therefore consistent all three assembly plants),

Would agree to this point - we will see what addition documentation brings

but the actual paint marking location on the springs or method of application of the paint (bottom leaf splotches vs long leaf stripes, etc.) was not consistent between suppliers...The "assembly line part numbers" are from confirmed reports where people have found paint markings on their springs and they have provided the number on the lower leaf of the spring as well.  For example, the C7ZA-5556-AC number was (and still is) on the springs of my own car, and I also found Silver and Green paint splotches as well.  So far, we only have four of these, but hopefully others on this forum will be able to contribute additional data points.

Haven't really seen that much difference from all the ones I've seen. Could these differences be related (my guess) to the supplying plant for the specific spring , time of year or simply a worker doing something different for one batch?   Not counting marking applied to restored cars or projects a rough estimate of what I have is 93% stripes on the first/short leaf, 2% on the second leaf (might be worker just being off) and 5% being dots/daubs on the  first/short leaf

Haven't gone through any of my early hand written records since that takes more time that looking through the more organized pictures



I too have a Silver green marked with the dots/daubs. We likely both got one from the same posting 

[Bossbill]

Spring data update.

Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040

Here are the markings and pic of same after a more substantial cleanup.
Due to monitor differences, I'll qualify the paint color using the industry standard Pantone color chart.
This was in direct sunlight and is an approximation of a 50 year old color.


Pantone 1525 PC
C:1
M:75
Y:100
K:8

[Bob Gaines]

Spring data update.

Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040

Here are the markings and pic of same after a more substantial cleanup.
Due to monitor differences, I'll qualify the paint color using the industry standard Pantone color chart.
This was in direct sunlight and is an approximation of a 50 year old color.


Pantone 1525 PC
C:1
M:75
Y:100
K:8

The orange markings are what would be expected on a AR or AM spring however the square hole strap is a little strange . The round hole strap is more typical on these springs . Is there any evidence that they have ever been changed?   

[Bossbill]

Bob,

These appear original including having to use a Sawzall to get the spring out some years ago.
This car has been in my possession for over 30 years and was not changed during that time.
Also, the date of 040 works well for this early March car.

Maybe we need to compare other 'E' vendors during this time period?

[J_Speegle]

Spring data update.

Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040

Front the picture realizing that the digital pictures often show differently than true colors would offer than the AR springs I have pictures of are more yellow while the AM are more orange. Closer to what I'm seeing with yours as shown.




 

[Bossbill]

Interesting how wide those paint marks are. Agree on the colors.
Thanks for the pics.

I included the graphics industry standard Pantone info as the best approximation I could make of the color. I don't mean to imply this is what the factory originally used.  It's only what mine has morphed into today.
I've seen various threads here and elsewhere of "mixing a bit of this color with this color", but that doesn't account for monitors, cameras or printers.
But Pantone is a color standard and could be useful for describing what we are supposed to use to replicate the factory colors.

[J_Speegle]

I included the graphics industry standard Pantone info as the best approximation I could make of the color. I don't mean to imply this is what the factory originally used.  It's only what mine has morphed into today.....

Completely understand and think that a standard such as Pantone is a standard that could be applied often to things like that. Not always easy to travel and use in some of the conditions, we don't always make our observations at home or in our shops.  Looking at notes back into the early 80's I've got observations of a lighter yellow or off white on the AR springs. not sure why you found what you did. Always the possibility that the worker made a mistake or mismark  just like we see oddly (different from the "norm") place marks some times.

Also if observed on other cars we don't always have the opportunity to clean off the top layer of the mark to unveil the truer original color below  Same can be said of the pictures I posted - other that the one owner did at least "wet" the marking to help a bit