Topic: Scott Drake C7 Master Cylinder Cover

[67gtasanjose]

I think it looks pretty good. It even has the square-corner rubber seal (not the round later service type).
I cannot verify the bail is correct though.

Last picture is from Marcus' Library Article for reference.

[Bob Gaines]

I think it looks pretty good. It even has the square corner seal.
I cannot verify the bail is correct though.

Last picture is from Marcus' Library Article for reference.

I think it looks more then pretty good . Great is a better description IMO. Usable lids that do not have the connector bulge between the two halves are rare out in the wild.

[1967 eight barrel]

I bought one. They are fantastic. The bail holds tightly, is heavy and the cover is also well-made. After the Chinese made junk I have had to contend with that leaked and damaged the black paint in the engine compartment and the thin, weak bail I have nothing but positives to say about these. They look just like the corroded one I removed from the factory master. The price is more than fair too.

                                                                               -Keith

[Bossbill]

I have a zinc dichromate cap that looks like that one.
No vent between front/rear and all pretty and gold.
Bought a box of parts with a bunch of other neat Mustang doo-dads.

According to everything I've read I now place this on my 67 SJ car with a rebuilt master and paint it all semi-gloss and hide the pretty gold? Oh, and I put the sticker on the cap!

[J_Speegle]

According to everything I've read I now place this on my 67 SJ car with a rebuilt master and paint it all semi-gloss and hide the pretty gold? Oh, and I put the sticker on the cap!

Yes. Remember that while your painting it - try and reproduce the fitting plug shadows as mentioned in other threads

[67gtasanjose]

I have a zinc dichromate cap that looks like that one.
No vent between front/rear and all pretty and gold.
Bought a box of parts with a bunch of other neat Mustang doo-dads.

According to everything I've read I now place this on my 67 SJ car with a rebuilt master and paint it all semi-gloss and hide the pretty gold? Oh, and I put the sticker on the cap!

  Yes, it sure seems like a crime!  ...that and the spray-splatter sealer all over your pretty back firewall!

Now, do you get the EARLY sticker or the LATE sticker on your cap? Your March build date has a few anomalies!

[Bob Gaines]

FYI to those reading this detail being discussed (no raised path between front and rear master bowls) is a 67 detail only . Most likely by late 67 and all of 68 the change was made to the style cap with the raise path between the bowls. FYI Ford might have changed from the gold to the silver at that point also.   

[Bob Gaines]

Yes, it sure seems like a crime!  ...that and the spray-splatter sealer all over your pretty back firewall!

Now, do you get the EARLY sticker or the LATE sticker on your cap? Your March build date has a few anomalies!

Early sticker if using the early cap.

[67gtasanjose]

Early sticker if using the early cap.

Not trying to test your knowledge but the article has this conflicting comments, and I copied pasted here for reference (quote from Marcus' article)
"1967/1968/early 1969 production:
C7AZ-2162-B (zinc dichromate) with no cross over vent between reservoirs
C8OZ-2162-A (zinc) with cross over vent between reservoirs
Commonly debossed with the SAE 70R3 specification. A decal was placed on the painted cap with two versions of the decal.
Early to middle 1967 production used a C6 marked decal (see Decal A below), and mid to late 1967 production used an ESA
marked decal that remained in use until early 1969 production (see Decal B below)."

Then has a picture of each the early & the later style decal on the cap with a cross-over vent in the middle. The image only states that the STICKER is for later '67 to 69, does not state the cap is. 

[Bossbill]

"Say Hon, that's sure a pretty cap. It will look good against all the black in there," says she.
"No, I have to paint it black and get the correct shading. You won't see any gold.
It will also help if I apply it like I have a hangover."
Incredulous looks follow ...

I'm confused again.

Bob says early cap (am I to assume he means one without the crossover?) early sticker.
Marcus says "mid to late 1967 production used an ESA marked decal."
Ummmmm.

And than there is the mid to late thing. The calendar says January is month 6 if we include all of August. Maybe mid January. My car is March, so is it reasonable to say "ESA sticker?"
Of course this is a 67, so reasonable left the San Jose plant long ago.

[Bob Gaines]

Not trying to test your knowledge but the article has this conflicting comments, and I copied pasted here for reference (quote from Marcus' article)
"1967/1968/early 1969 production:
C7AZ-2162-B (zinc dichromate) with no cross over vent between reservoirs
C8OZ-2162-A (zinc) with cross over vent between reservoirs
Commonly debossed with the SAE 70R3 specification. A decal was placed on the painted cap with two versions of the decal.
Early to middle 1967 production used a C6 marked decal (see Decal A below), and mid to late 1967 production used an ESA
marked decal that remained in use until early 1969 production (see Decal B below)."

Then has a picture of each the early & the later style decal on the cap with a cross-over vent in the middle. The image only states that the STICKER is for later '67 to 69, does not state the cap is.

It would be nice if we had a clear cut factory documentation to indicate one way or the other. Unfortunately in this case we don't and opinion is formulated based on concrete data along with observations. This information like other info about theses cars is evolving. What was said 6 months ago may not necessarily be current now (quote from Bob Gaines). FYI my input along with others went into the article Marcus wrote. If you recall the numerous times on this forum it has been said when the subject comes up about a book on restoration details about how quickly some information (not whole articles) becomes obsolete. I think it is best and error on the side of caution . Early sticker on the cap without crossover and later sticker on cap with crossover. The changeover is still debatable. Later 67 production for the ESA sticker and crossover cap is a safe bet . Certainly all of 68 production for same. That is my opinion until more compelling evidence suggests otherwise. 

[Bob Gaines]

"Say Hon, that's sure a pretty cap. It will look good against all the black in there," says she.
"No, I have to paint it black and get the correct shading. You won't see any gold.
It will also help if I apply it like I have a hangover."
Incredulous looks follow ...

I'm confused again.

Bob says early cap (am I to assume he means one without the crossover?) early sticker.
Marcus says "mid to late 1967 production used an ESA marked decal."
Ummmmm.

And than there is the mid to late thing. The calendar says January is month 6 if we include all of August. Maybe mid January. My car is March, so is it reasonable to say "ESA sticker?"
Of course this is a 67, so reasonable left the San Jose plant long ago.

It depends on the cap you decide to use and the case you make for the changeover if you choose the later cap.

[67gtasanjose]

It depends on the cap you decide to use and the case you make for the changeover if you choose the later cap.

Marcus article mentions the number C8OZ-2162-A for the cap with the center cross-over vent. Is it possible there is some misunderstanding about this number and when it began to be used? It would stand to reason that a C8 engineering number would be a 68 model or newer but we have those 289 engines out there in the 67 model year with a C8 casting number too so, I guess anything goes?
 
I wouldn't have any leg to stand on in this arena, have no idea at all and besides, I don't even have a dog in the race since my example I am working on is clearly in the "early" realm. BossBill is smack-dab in the middle of the mix is all. I hope we can figure something definitive for his build not just a statement loosely built around a "case he makes".

[Bossbill]

he "early" realm. BossBill is smack-dab in the middle of the mix is all. I hope we can figure something definitive for his build not just a statement loosely built around a "case he makes".

My car is spread over a few months. It started (parts of its) life in December. By January it got a lot of major body parts -- both months for the engine; January for the steering --  and by March 2 it was born!
Based on the over/under of the brake lines it appears to be more on the early side. Maybe.

The pics I have of my (lost) master indicate a silver cap, so it doesn't matter much if I find it. While looking for parts in another part of the shop I did find an original (NOS/NORS/something) booster and a brand new date coded clutch/brake support since mine was toast. So the hunt for parts, which I thought were all in one place, continues!

I understand where Bob is coming from. We are trying to nail him down on some of these issues when we haven't found the right nail to use. It's a moving target that changes as more original examples are found. I get it.

Thankfully if we get better information I just have to change a decal or lid. I'm ok with that.

[J_Speegle]

And than there is the mid to late thing. The calendar says January is month 6 if we include all of August. Maybe mid January. My car is March, so is it reasonable to say "ESA sticker?"
Of course this is a 67, so reasonable left the San Jose plant long ago.

Some times we used the term "early" and "late" as general descriptors not to be confused with timer periods that divide the production in half or even close to it only to define which one came before the other

Looking at original cars I have pictures of unrestored 67 San Jose power disc brake cars from late March with the C6 sticker and the cap without the cross over detail

We're getting far enough (enough posts) to start considering splitting the thread again since we've surely moved away from discussing the New Drake reproduction