Author Topic: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?  (Read 2443 times)

Offline ChrisV289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1965
Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« on: June 16, 2019, 08:32:32 PM »
How can I tell if these are original or repros? No stamping anywhere
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 06:08:35 PM by J_Speegle »
Chris
1965 Honey Gold Fastback (SJ 10/29/64)
1965 Caspian Blue Fastback (SJ 06/03/65)
2009 V6 Mustang Coupe

Offline RoyceP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Original Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2019, 10:33:10 AM »
I thin the two bases that you have are reproduction. Real ones have date codes.

The chrome lid may be an original 1963 - 65 version. It sure looks convincing.
1968 W code 427 Cougar XR-7 GTE Feb 23 Dearborn C6 / 3.50 open
1968 R code 428CJ Cougar XR-7 May 13 Dearborn C6 / 3.91 T - Lock

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: Original Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2019, 02:38:51 PM »
Mannel implies that not all 1965s had a date stamp and that prior to 1965 they may not had them at all with this statement in 5C10e:
"Most 1965 and later bottoms plates will carry date codes, such as this January 5A (e) for January 1965."

I take 'most' to mean not all and the further implication is that prior to January 1965 they may not have had a date at all.

I have a double bump no fitting bottom that I don't believe was every reproduced with no date too. Several SAAC forum members declared it original when they personally inspected it.

It would be interesting to see a discussion with picture and differences of all of the bottoms, including the known reproductions, to settle the issue.

change hump to bump...
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 07:14:25 PM by Bossbill »
Bill
Concours  Actual Ford Build 3/2/67 GT350 01375
Driven      6/6/70 0T02G160xxx Boss 302
Modified   5/18/65 5F09A728xxx Boss 347 Terminator-X 8-Stack
Race        65 2+2 Coupe conversion

Offline sgl66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Original Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2019, 04:19:30 PM »
Mannel implies that not all 1965s had a date stamp and that prior to 1965 they may not had them at all with this statement in 5C10e:
"Most 1965 and later bottoms plates will carry date codes, such as this January 5A (e) for January 1965."

...

It would be interesting to see a discussion with picture and differences of all of the bottoms, including the known reproductions, to settle the issue.
For years I counted my base as one of the originals without a stamp. When I repainted it, I took it down to bare metal and there was a very light 5 A stamp.

Regarding the base, here is a good thread on the SAAC forum http://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=3974.0
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 11:45:11 AM by sglbbs »
66 GT 6T09K12---- scheduled Oct 14, bucked Oct 13 '65

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24627
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2019, 06:08:16 PM »
Weight, shape (often focusing on the lip at the outer edge and the stampings for the base are the typical places people start the comparison
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2019, 07:13:38 PM »
Does somebody want to weigh their base?

Start with a no nipple base, single or double bump in base.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 08:57:19 PM by carlite65 »
Bill
Concours  Actual Ford Build 3/2/67 GT350 01375
Driven      6/6/70 0T02G160xxx Boss 302
Modified   5/18/65 5F09A728xxx Boss 347 Terminator-X 8-Stack
Race        65 2+2 Coupe conversion

Offline Dan Case

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2019, 06:22:14 PM »
The lid may or may not be an original, can't tell from the pictures posted. If it is an original and not refinished there should be some stamping die defects present. The stamping die set for the "tuned" (a.k.a. double hump) lids had four each "ejector" pins in it to assist getting a just stamped part off the tooling. Depending on when the parts were made the tooling condition left slight marks to very noticeable marks in the steel. Said another way, the contours of the pin ends and the holes they recessed into were sometimes very good (but not perfect) and sometimes they were pretty rough based on the damage to lids seen over the 1963-65 time frame.

The producer made no attempt to work out the metal defects prior to plating. Most plating shops will do their best to make them go away.  The typical original unmolested used or new old stock service lid has four damaged places per lid. Reproductions do not so far.

I will cut and paste my commentary on this type air filter assembly below. My notes are specifically for Cobras but since this type air cleaner overlapped into Mustangs most of it applies most likely.  Some non-Cobra applications used based painted gold. I have come across service bases that were painted gold first and subsequently repainted black.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A.   Air cleaners.

a.   4V equipped engines used the same chrome plated double hump lid “tuned” assembly as used for 289 High Performance Fairlanes. If the base had a nipple for a clean air supply for a choke pull off it was blocked with a rubber cap and not used.

i.   Base

1.   Stamped steel painted high gloss black on the side facing the engine. The side facing the filter element was bare steel not painted on purpose, but received highly variable amounts and patterns of over spray. Bases have been seen with just a few black speckles of overspray to wide bands of spray pattern overspray. The round boss formed in that fits the carburetor tops often is not painted on the inside rolled surface not perpendicular to the bottom surface, i.e. paint didn’t get to places not in a straight line of sight from the paint spray gun.

2.   Corrosion Problem: Because the element side was not painted (other than chance overspray) used parts are nearly universally rusted. Because there was apparently no chemical pretreatment of the part prior to painting the bottom side the bases are not very corrosion resistant. The lack of chemical pretreatment on these parts during manufacturing means that most, used or new old stock in their original shipping packages, will normally have some degree of filiform corrosion present.  (Corrosion and Degradation of Engineering Materials;  G.M. Scamans, R.G. Buchheit, in Shreir's Corrosion, 2010: Filiform corrosion may be considered as a specific type of differential aeration cell corrosion that occurs from defects…on painted or coated metal surfaces. Filiform corrosion attack has a unique appearance that resembles fine filaments (worm-like threads) emanating from one or more defects in semi-random directions.)

ii.   Element

1.   The inner metal wire screen was marked with large ECJ-9601-C2 engineering number and a large oval FoMoCo script logo. The elastomeric rings are bright orange. The element paper is pale yellow. The outer screen is made round punched holes mesh metal. Fram® was the supplier.

iii.    Top

1.   Stamped steel that showed no evidence of the metal being polished prior to plating. Metal defects such as "Lüders' lines"  (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003. Lüders' lines[′lüd•ərz ‚līnz] (metallurgy) Surface markings on a metal caused by flow of the material strained beyond its elastic limit. Also known as deformation bands; Hartmann lines; Lüders' bands; Piobert lines; stretcher strains.) and waves or wrinkles are not uncommon. Examples have been seen where the raw material was either not wide enough to make a part or the material had slipped to one side in the die such that a small straight edge gets left at the extremity of the diameter. All parts have four (4) each round surface shape defects. The stamping die had four ejection pins to help remove the freshly stamped part from the die. The contours of the ends of the ejector pins rarely matched the contours of the lid well and something didn’t match at all. These die ejector pins produced round defects in the part. (Refinished original parts are easy to spot because platers affect these pin marks during their rework and often eliminate them entirely. This makes replated originals look like reproductions that don’t have the pin marks.) Both sides of the part received very thin nickel plating. The top side received a very thin to thin layer of chromium plating. Nickel plating is yellow in comparison to chromium plating so areas not over coated with chromium  or coated thick enough to hide the yellow color will exhibit a yellow coloration. Sometime yellow areas are exhibited on the top appearance surface due to poor manufacturing quality control. Fit and finish just didn’t seem to matter at the time. The filter element side may or may not have some chromium plating on it. There is normally a round area under where the securing wing nut goes that shows little or no chromium plating. It looks like a plating mask or hanger created the effect of a yellow circular area under the wing nut.

2.   Corrosion problem: The plating system used on these parts provided very little corrosion protection. Finding a used lid with zero blistering in the plating is rare. A single event that left chemicals or water standing on the lid would have most likely created the first blistering. Failure mode starts off as extremely small blisters under the plating. The blisters grow as rusting under the plating increases and eventually rupture to show red rust. Over time some lids became nearly 100% involved in red rust with little or no plating left.

3.   Decals. The typical new Cobra, based on new car road test articles, had two common Ford decals on these air cleaner lids. The larger of the two was the "AUTOLITE® SPARK PLUG" advertisement in color. The other smaller was a "FOMOCO REPLACEMENT PARTS" advertisement.  One original period picture shows a lid in a new Cobra missing the smaller decal. A missing decal must not have been considered important enough to replace the part back then.


« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 08:09:38 PM by Dan Case »
Dan
1964 Cobra owner since 1983, Cobra crazy since I saw my first one in the mid 1960s in Huntsville, AL.

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2019, 07:00:44 PM »
After I read this I had to look up Luder's Bands.
Interesting read, Dan Case.
Bill
Concours  Actual Ford Build 3/2/67 GT350 01375
Driven      6/6/70 0T02G160xxx Boss 302
Modified   5/18/65 5F09A728xxx Boss 347 Terminator-X 8-Stack
Race        65 2+2 Coupe conversion

Offline 67350#1242

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2019, 10:53:38 PM »
Quote
All parts have four (4) each round surface shape defects. The stamping die had four ejection pins to help remove the freshly stamped part from the die.

I've got an original 66/67 lid that has evidence of 8 of these defects evenly spaced around the lid - always wondered what they were.   Position of defects marked with circles in photo:

67 Coupe SJ 11/16/66
67 GT350 SJ 2/01/67

Offline s2ms

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • 6S1757 Info
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2019, 04:45:55 PM »
ii.   Element

1.   The inner metal wire screen was marked with large ECJ-9601-C2 engineering number and a large oval FoMoCo script logo. The elastomeric rings are bright orange. The element paper is pale yellow. The outer screen is made round punched holes mesh metal. Fram® was the supplier.

Dan,

It's my understanding the original FoMoCo elastomeric rings were more of a maroon color, and the orange rings starting showing up with the Autolite filters in 67.

Dave

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2019, 06:40:50 PM »
How about that -- I can make out 4 on mine.
To me this means I'll spend the money to have this one re-chromed.
Bill
Concours  Actual Ford Build 3/2/67 GT350 01375
Driven      6/6/70 0T02G160xxx Boss 302
Modified   5/18/65 5F09A728xxx Boss 347 Terminator-X 8-Stack
Race        65 2+2 Coupe conversion

Offline Dan Case

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2019, 07:05:53 PM »
Dan,
It's my understanding the original FoMoCo elastomeric rings were more of a maroon color, and the orange rings starting showing up with the Autolite filters in 67.
Dave

Understand first, my notes cover new Cobra engines 1961 through 1965. I pointed out my frame of reference in my first comments above. My current notes are 94 pages long and should be read after reading Bob Mannel’s book sections covering model years 1963, 1964, and 1965.

The color of molded elastomer was time frame dependent as best I can tell.

The bright orange ‘rubber’ ones were all made by Fram Corporation as far as I know. One of the 1963-1965 427 Galaxie 4V ones I recently sold had a shipping label from Fram still on the box. I have seen the ones with a maroon type color ‘rubber’ for sale. As far as I can tell they came out past the new Cobra production period.
Dan
1964 Cobra owner since 1983, Cobra crazy since I saw my first one in the mid 1960s in Huntsville, AL.

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24627
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2019, 07:18:01 PM »
You'll find the maroon colored filters as far back as 55 T Bird. And that was one of the sources many purchased for use on 65's for a long time till those dried up.

Do have a fair number of Fram made (without the FoMoCo and Ford part number ink) filters from the period out in the garage. Never checked to see if the boxes ate dated though that would be something I should check next time in the attic

Dan thanks for posting and noting that you research focuses on earlier years than we focus on here and Cobra applications though some info is shared with both.

To me this means I'll spend the money to have this one re-chromed.

And remember to get the shop not to removed these "defects" or they will be gone when you get the lid back like so many other details that disappear during rechroming. Wing window frame details, bumper dates .....
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 07:20:47 PM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Dan Case

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2019, 07:50:32 PM »
Dan thanks for posting and noting that you research focuses on earlier years than we focus on here and
You are welcome.

Cobra and 427 Cobra wise, Shelby American very often used one thing and sold something else as a service part.  Many service items were very different than what was installed on new cars street or race.

Bear that in mind when having a 1965-66 MUSTANG GT350 part and material discussion, especially early cars finished in the Venice complex.

Anyway, the reason I jumped in was in details of the early air cleaner bases and lids and details almost always lost during rework.
Dan
1964 Cobra owner since 1983, Cobra crazy since I saw my first one in the mid 1960s in Huntsville, AL.

Offline mgmradio

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Original High Performance 289 Air Cleaner Unit?
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2019, 10:05:29 PM »
All 3 of my unrestored 65's have the orange rubber on the filters. Also the ones on the June 65 cars have different screen configurations than the Aug 65 car.
Formerly the MCA ANHJ 64.5-66!