Author Topic: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket  (Read 3638 times)

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2020, 06:26:07 PM »
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.
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 Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9358
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2020, 08:12:51 PM »
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.
I am wondering what type of tool made the hole. The ones that I have seen still in place appeared to use a typical sheet metal screw similar to the regulator ,solenoid , splash shields etc. . It was not like a self drilling type screw which it would need to be if it drilled through the meta . The apron is relatively thin. The fender lip and apron metal thickness combined would be much thicker and consequently hard to go through. Once measurements and gauge of steel used for the bracket are confirmed it will be relative easy to make a modified one for a particular battery and hold down combination . The slight difference in dimension to make the bracket work compared to factory would most likely be hardly noticeable if at all IMO. 
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline ruppstang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2020, 08:34:19 PM »
I think we can safely say the bracket was only used on the HD applications. Here is a picture comparing a NOS 22F and a reproduction 24F batteries. The original 24F is a bit taller than the reproduction. I have only see the extra bracket in one size. You can see that there would have had to been to sizes if they were used on the 22F.

I agree the bracket would not be difficult to make and I would make it to fit a modern battery.

Here is a original bracket. Top and bottom legs are 1 1/2 and the off set is 1 3/8.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 10:57:07 PM by ruppstang »

Offline Bossbill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3283
  • In the middle of project hell
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2020, 11:01:58 PM »
Is it possible to have battery envy?
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 J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24620
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2020, 12:35:43 AM »
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.

Just depends on where the worker placed/orientated the bracket and put the hole. Have many examples of both  - just inside the fender edge and others where it is located more outboard placing the hole through the fender and inner fender panel. On cars where the fender has been replaced you sometimes can't see the hole.

Guess I should figure out a way to illustrate what the survey produced - just need to find some time - been allot busier since the stay at home orders and such took place.  Also some new information/findings have been suggested so need to cross reference that will the findings also to see how it all works together
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 01:00:24 AM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline ruppstang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2020, 12:43:34 AM »
Is it possible to have battery envy?

I show our unrestored 68 HCS with that NOS 22F and have to have anyone notice it. I guess it look much like the 24F reproduction so they do not notice.

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2020, 02:27:18 AM »
While realizing of course, that this thread is for possible "Running Changes at the San Jose Plant" in 1967, the Topic, nonetheless, has peaked my interest (just another case where I'd like to see the ability to have three sub-topics, one for each Plant, under one Main Topic ; while it appears that there are more "interested people", or at least more interested people willing to share, on the West Coast, and thus more San Jose cars, I'm sure that there are others like me, that are interested in what happened at all Plants, not just "our own",  whether it be Dearborn, Metuchen or San Jose ; while similar threads could be started for Dearborn and Metuchen, there are apparently not enough willing to do that, and even if they were done, would most likely not carry the identical Topic name, and would thus not be easy to compare or comprehend - enough said ; any more is for another Topic).

Having said the above, and getting back on track with the "Additional Battery Hold-Down Bracket", I started with the 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual. The Battery Illustration there is dated 1-13-66 (a carryover from 1966), and shows no "Additional Bracket". It does have a note to see the "Body Assembly Manual" for Installation of the Battery Mounting Parts. A look at the Body Assembly Manual has an illustration dated 9-16-66 (copy attached), and again, no "additional bracket".

Next, assuming (?) that the reproduction bracket that Marty referred to earlier, had the correct Part Number (C7ZZ-10753-A) listed on NPD's site, I checked my November 1, 1966 Ford List Price Book ; there is no listing for that part.

I then looked at my "1967 Only" MPC (printed January 1, 1967) ; once again, no listing for such part, and it is not shown in any of the illustrations or text provided. However, there is a C7ZZ-10A691-A Bracket listed  for V8's with A/C, and both Standard and Heavy Duty Batteries. Of course, there is no illustration of this part, so I have no idea what it looks like, or where it goes. This bracket is shown in the November Price Book.

On to the 1960-68 MPC. A look at the "Battery Mounting Parts" page (copy attached),  produces several new "discoveries" :
   
   1) Besides the previously noted C7ZZ-10A697-A "Brace or Bracket", a C7ZZ-
       10753-A is also noted.

   2) Note that the C7ZZ-10753-A Brace or Bracket, which Jeff has previously noted,
       as "Upper", as would have I, is noted as "Lower", and the C7ZZ-10A691-A is
       noted as "Upper".

   3) Both parts are shown to be used with both Standard and Heavy Duty Batteries,
       and with no caveat as to Engine size or A/C.

   4) 1968 is shown to use the same parts as 1967.

A look at the May 1, 1967 Ford Price Book, does show that Part Number C7ZZ-10753-A was then available for purchase.

In looking at the 1968 Electrical Assembly Manual, the sheet showing the Battery is dated 12-20-67, and like its predecessor in 1967, shows nothing regarding installation of the Battery Hold-Down ; but also has the note like in the 67, to see the Body Assembly Manual for Installation of the Battery Mounting parts. Unfortunately, I do not have a 1968 Body Assembly Manual, so hopefully, someone who does can Post that page to see if it might answer some of the unknowns (such as what C7ZZ-10A691-A is, and where was it used).

In summary, I propose the following conclusions :

1) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was a "system wide" addition, not a "Plant Only" addition.

2) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was not used until sometime between January 1, 1967 and
    January 31, 1967 (pictures from my January 31, 1967 Dearborn car attached). It is of course   
    possible that other Plants didn't implement this change until after January 31.

3) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was used in addition to the C6ZZ-10A691-A Bracket/Brace.

4) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was to be used on all Models regardless of Engine size or
     whether with, or without A/C.

Richard : While I did not go through each TSB one by one (at least not yet), I did look at my
January 1966 through December 1968 TSB Index and found no reference to the "Additional Bracket".

Bill : As you can see by the pictures I attached of my Convertible, the hole is in both the Fender Flange and Fender Apron, like yours.

Marty : While your comparison shows that the two batteries are different heights, which would require a different Bracket, or a spacer to be used on the 22F batteries, the original 45 and 55 amp Batteries are shown to be the same height (1960-68 MPC).

Bob G : If you zoom in to the picture that I attached of my 67 Fender flange, it appears to be a punched hole. I don't have a better picture right now, but will get some, when and if we get to Colorado (where my 67 resides) later this Spring or Summer.

Hopefully, the above has helped answer at least some questions as to the "mystery of the Additional Bracket.

Bob
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24620
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2020, 03:08:52 AM »
Don't doubt for a minute that the bracket was used at other plants. Have pictures of original cars with it. Just typically start these things where we have the the greatest numbers of cars and data.

Though it does not relate to this exact thread - Do you have a Marti report and buildsheet for your Dearborn built 67?

I've been through all the TSB articles that reflect on 67 production and I've never seen one related to the subject but that is not an oddity since those often deal with issues, problems, fixes and so on.

Holes I've seen, on cars I've owned and those I have pictures of tend to have the hole deformed from the screw tightening
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 05:47:10 PM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9358
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2020, 02:36:00 PM »
So back to square on the bracket being random or as needed? use not related HD battery?   With no other information to suggest otherwise my conclusion also was a punched hole based on the evidence . Many holes i have seen are deformed metal downward edges which would be typical of a punched hole instead of drilled or screw cut. It was typical for Ford to punch holes because of the deformed metal downward edge provides extra area for screw threads to grip to. I still would like to see the machine used to punch through that thick of metal without deforming the surrounding metal like a fender lip or even thin apron metal. It must have been fast and powerful.
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24620
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2020, 02:52:58 PM »
So back to square on the bracket being random or as needed? use not related HD battery? ........

Currently working on (between other requests) the data I've collected in relationship to engine, transmission, buildsheet data, marti reports and other options as well as documented confirmations of the holes and or bracket. There are around a half dozen points that I'm plotting on a spread sheet to see where they intersect with one another.

Don't believe they are random but of course one or two factory mistakes or a couple being added over the years can happen and can be addressed in the study IMHO

Numbers and data should tell the tale
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Blue_67_Fastback

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2020, 03:26:06 PM »
Thanks for the dimensions, Marty!
I will reproduce one that fitĀ“s to my actual installed Battery.

Jeff, I send the requested Info via email.
1967 Fastback, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 7F02C169xxx, Build Date 3/2/67
First Mustang Club of Germany 1964-73 e.V.

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9358
Re: 67 SJ Running Change? Survey - Additional Battery Hold-down Bracket
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2020, 05:53:27 PM »
Currently working on (between other requests) the data I've collected in relationship to engine, transmission, buildsheet data, marti reports and other options as well as documented confirmations of the holes and or bracket. There are around a half dozen points that I'm plotting on a spread sheet to see where they intersect with one another.

Don't believe they are random but of course one or two factory mistakes or a couple being added over the years can happen and can be addressed in the study IMHO

Numbers and data should tell the tale
I was leaning towards HD battery . Ford does things fr a reason . I don't think random ether .I have seen evidence on cars that did not have a HD battery which complicates a clear understand of the when and why. I will be interested in seeing what your data suggests.
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby