Topic: 67 Rear Spring Markings Discussion

[Bob Gaines]

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

I hate to disagree about the color but I have found orange is the more typical color found on the competition springs. Maybe fading has something to do with identification of a presumed other color (easy to do) . Orange is what I have found with a high confidence level .

[J_Speegle]

I hate to disagree about the color but I have found orange is the more typical color found on the competition springs. Maybe fading has something to do with identification of a presumed other color (easy to do) . Orange is what I have found with a high confidence level .

That's OK and isn't the first time nor possibly the last. Feel confident with what I've found and seen also. The car in one of the two pictures I posted I know you have seen a fair umber of times though not certain you have looked at the rear springs since its never been available on a lift like other examples at some shows.  Maybe there is another explanation for the difference in findings that we have not uncovered at this point

[Bob Gaines]

That's OK and isn't the first time nor possibly the last. Feel confident with what I've found and seen also. The car in one of the two pictures I posted I know you have seen a fair umber of times though not certain you have looked at the rear springs since its never been available on a lift like other examples at some shows.  Maybe there is another explanation for the difference in findings that we have not uncovered at this point

We agree way more times then disagree is what is important to remember.

[Bossbill]

I was trying hard to get to Brown (like the Paperback Writer's sheet says) but I think Orange is a better fit for what I found.

I did get from SAAC the SVO Parts Spec sheet for my block of Shelbys (280 of them) (schedule date of 2/6) and find that:
"Items to be deleted" is C7ZA-AA Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
"Items to install" is C7ZA-AR Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear

On another front, Richard (67gtasanjose) wanted to know the spring code on my son's GTA fastback and here is some data on it from the 999 report:
7R02A149xxx
Date: 12/6/66
GT (incl heavy duty suspension)
XP automatic
Power Steering
Exterior decor
Styled wheels
No A/C

The spring code on the GTA  (it took over 2 dozen pics at various angles to find the code) is "AE". There is no way I could find a color on this extremely weathered spring.

[J_Speegle]

We agree way more times then disagree is what is important to remember.

Yes - would guess we're around 96% in that matter

I was trying hard to get to Brown (like the Paperback Writer's sheet says) but I think Orange is a better fit for what I found.

I did get from SAAC the SVO Parts Spec sheet for my block of Shelbys (280 of them) (schedule date of 2/6) and find that:
"Items to be deleted" is C7ZA-AA Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
"Items to install" is C7ZA-AR Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear

Some may thing of the more recent SVO program when you use the initials for Special Vehicle Order and Parts Specification sheets - often referred to as the Add/Delete sheets by many. Doesn't look I have copies of the one for your DSO group but each lists the rear spring change
and its one way to track the AR and AM applications for these specific cars but that's getting off thread a little

[67gtasanjose]

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

...On another front, Richard (67gtasanjose) wanted to know the spring code on my son's GTA fastback and here is some data on it from the 999 report:
7R02A149xxx
Date: 12/6/66
GT (incl heavy duty suspension)
XP automatic
Power Steering
Exterior decor
Styled wheels
No A/C

The spring code on the GTA  (it took over 2 dozen pics at various angles to find the code) is "AE". There is no way I could find a color on this extremely weathered spring.

So "AE" seems to be a typical find for at least 2 examples, John's 12/20/66 built C-code fastback GTA (reply #8) and Bill's 12/6/66 projected build date, fastback GTA (reply# 33) so we deduce when combining the information found in the MPC's that a Coupe and fastback would typically get the same replacement springs at least...we seem to be pinning down the likelihood of some of the EARLY BUILD Spring assemblyline leaf spring stamping codes. It would be nice to go about a month further back into November '66, and a huge bonus to find a GTA coupe in the October/December time frame (San Jose built being a huge PLUS)

*updated for clarity

[Bossbill]

Doesn't look I have copies of the one for your DSO group but each lists the rear spring change
and its one way to track the AR and AM applications for these specific cars but that's getting off thread a little

I'll send you a copy.

Note that the GTA has been in family for more than 35 years, so I believe its springs are original. Poor thing needs a restoration.

[J_Speegle]

So "AE" seems to be a typical find for at least 1st few weeks in December, used on fastback GTA's and we deduce from the MPC's that a Coupe and fastback would get the same replacement springs at least we seem to be pinning down the likelihood of codes.

Agreed we just need to determine if originally they used the same since that is the end goal

It would be nice to go about a month further back into November '66, and a huge bonus to find a GTA coupe in the October/December time frame (San Jose a huge PLUS)

So as to not post misleading information and take us off in a different direction would a A code San Jose Coupe, 4 speed, with the HD suspension (likely a GT) likely built first week Nov, be on target for this request? 

By Spring time the rear springs changed to another version

In addition have a A code coupe with suspension package ( again likely GT) 4 speed built first week Dec

[67gtasanjose]

Agreed we just need to determine if originally they used the same since that is the end goal



So as to not post misleading information and take us off in a different direction would a A code San Jose Coupe, 4 speed, with the HD suspension (likely a GT) likely built first week Nov, be on target for this request? 

By Spring time the rear springs changed to another version

In addition have a A code coupe with suspension package ( again likely GT) 4 speed built first week Dec

Yes, any samples in this late-1966 time frame would be "on target" for my search of original examples. The springtime of 67 examples, I wouldn't personally have any interest in but it may help other readers (to see a trend of usage)
~Thanks

[J_Speegle]

Ok as referenced above here is some more information taken from buildsheets and other sources for cross referencing. Please study carefully before applying any of these markings or information Closest matching of cars for the survey I could find

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7T01A118xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 03K.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red


7R01A13xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 08L.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red


7T01A260xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 05F.
Rear Springs listed as Orange & Pink 

Long shot but this (Orange & Pink) maybe the C7ZA-AS spring. If so the earliest date I have on one is the 40th day of the year


This same color marking was used on mid Jan 67 S codes and earlier with the Handling/GT package according to buildsheets then replaced.  So it appears that this spring was "down graded" to small block GT applications and replaced by a different spring.

That would match up with the buildsheets I have so far and the date I have for the earliest example I have sort of falls into place also.

[67gtasanjose]

Ok as referenced above here is some more information taken from buildsheets and other sources for cross referencing. Please study carefully before applying any of these markings or information Closest matching of cars for the survey I could find

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7T01A118xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 03K.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red


7R01A13xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 08L.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red


7T01A260xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 05F.
Rear Springs listed as Orange & Pink 

Long shot but this (Orange & Pink) maybe the C7ZA-AS spring. If so the earliest date I have on one is the 40th day of the year


This same color marking was used on mid Jan 67 S codes and earlier with the Handling/GT package according to buildsheets then replaced.  So it appears that this spring was "down graded" to small block GT applications and replaced by a different spring.

That would match up with the buildsheets I have so far and the date I have for the earliest example I have sort of falls into place also.

VERY helpful information. Thank you!
Maybe a bit of a reach, but this information leans hard towards the two small block GTA's both of them December built "AE" examples mentioned within this thread so far, (John's 12/20/66 example mentioned in reply #8, Bill's estimated 12/6/66 build date mentioned in reply # 33, NOTE: each of these examples are without having their original color markings, build sheets or other info available) that both of their sets of "AE" springs were very likely marked Silver/Red.

Everything else shared so far leads one to believe that the Orange/Pink would be later-built 67 GT or GTA fastbacks/coupes (like on or around the middle/end of January, '67).

Is this what others are reading from these results Jeff posted? Certainly, the more examples we can find, the better we could hone-in on the results.

NOTE ON EDIT: Trying to keep things tidied up, easier to follow. Connecting references to reply numbers and including as much information known to date as possible within the text.

[196667Bob]

As part of this ongoing discussion, questions have been brought up in regard to both the Heavy Duty Suspension Option and the Competition Handling Package Option. In particular, if the HD Suspension Package could be. and was ordered on any non-GT's, and if the Competition Handling Package was ordered as a separate Option on GT's.

In order to try to get answers to these questions, I contacted Kevin Marti. I have contacted Kevin before in regard to Options which are not listed in his "Mustangs by the Numbers" book. From our previous discussions, I knew that Kevin had data on other Options, but was reluctant to provide actual numbers since much of the information that he provided in "Mustangs by the Numbers" had "found its way" all over the place "for free", thus reducing the importance of having his book. Knowing this, I proposed the following two questions to him :

1)  Can you confirm that any non-GT Mustangs were ordered with the "Heavy Duty Suspension Package" ?

2)  Can you confirm that any GT Mustangs were ordered with the "Competition Handling Package" ?

Kevin's answer to both questions was "Yes".

Now, knowing those two items as "fact", it should stand to reason (?) that boxes on the build sheets should have been "X'd" when they were ordered. Thus, more items to be aware of when trying to decipher Spring questions.

Bob

[J_Speegle]

Now, knowing those two items as "fact", it should stand to reason (?) that boxes on the build sheets should have been "X'd" when they were ordered. Thus, more items to be aware of when trying to decipher Spring questions.

Guess your really stating that the boxes should be marked to indicated since an "X" is not always used but a code was inserted to indicate the choice

All of the examples in the later posts (the three car examples) had a "D" in the box as written

[196667Bob]

Jeff : Bad choice on my part using an "X" to designate some kind of marking in C9, since an "X" is used in many of the other columns. While it could be an "X" on non-GT cars to designate that the Heavy Duty Suspension Option was included, it could have been some other letter. The point I was trying to make was that if a non-GT car was ordered with the HD Suspension Option, something should be in the C9 box.

That being said, there are still some items of confusion, at least to me. The way I see it, as far as suspension goes, there were four choices :

     1)  Standard (C9 and C10 left Blank).

     2)  A non-GT ordered with HD Suspension (C9 marked with some letter, C10 left Blank).

     3)  A GT ordered that, by definition, comes with the Special Handling Package (C10 marked, probably
           with a "D", C9  marked or unmarked ?). Since HD Suspension is part of Special Handling Package,
           C9 could have been marked same as C10. Related question ; in examples in your Reply # 39 are all
           GT's ? Also, what, if anything, is marked in C10 ?
         
     4)  A GT ordered with the Competition Handling Package (C10 marked with possibly an "E", C9
          presumably would be left blank since the Competition Handling Package would seem to override
          the HD Suspension Option, yet the two examples shown have an "E" in both C9 and C10 ??

Once these are resolved, I will feel more comfortable in trying to place specific spring leaves into the categories in which they belong.

Bob

[Paperback Writer]

Hi Bob,

No disrespect to Jeff, but of the 50+ 1967 Mustang build sheets I've seen, the C9, "HD Suspension" field was rarely used.  I've only seen the letter "E" used in C9 (on three build sheets), and these were all export cars.  Coincidentally, all three of them were also GT's - but one was a C-Code car - so this cannot be an indicator of the Competition Handling Package, as that was not available the C-Code engine...

For the C10 "Handling Type" field, the same three build sheets that have an "E" in C9, also have an "E" in field C10.  I posted two of these "double E" examples here: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109688#msg109688

I have cataloged another 27 build sheets with a "D" in field C10, and these are all cars with the Heavy Duty suspension option (which was part of the GT package as well, but note that not all cars with the Heavy Duty suspension were GT's - see my earlier post: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109693#msg109693

To date, I have not seen any build sheets for a Competition Handling Car (which was only available with K-Code and S-Code Mustangs, and required the purchase of the GT option as well), so I do not know how these build sheets were marked...

Kevin