Topic: 1967 Tilt-Away column question

[Horsman]

Noticed the end of the steering column is open to dirt and debris. Is there something missing or is this as designed?

Please see picture.

[ruppstang]

Yes there is a plastic bushing that goes in there. You can find the part number and a picture n the assembly manual.

[67gtasanjose]

Noticed the end of the steering column is open to dirt and debris. Is there something missing or is this as designed?

Please see picture.

Yes there is a plastic bushing that goes in there. You can find the part number and a picture n the assembly manual.

I believe the plastic end may be another running change.
Early used a foam piece like a chunk cut from a water pipe insulation. Originals degraded and fell out.

[Horsman]

My car was built March 2, 1967. Hopefully there is a source for this item still.

[67gta289]

I thought we talked about this... Did a search and came up empty.  What I found in the MPC are four potential basic part numbers; 3C577, 3B564 and 3674 (which Ford seems to use somewhat interchangeably), and 3B361.  Refer to the attached file with pictures and part numbers.

I went with the C7OZ-3C577-B from Mustangs Etc. and am very happy with it.

[ruppstang]

Here is our SJ 11-04-66 C code tilt column. It has a rubber bushing. Here is our SJ 07-16-68 with the plastic bushing.

[196667Bob]

Like John, I too picked up the rubber bushing to use on my 1/31/67 car. Not cheap ($75 IIRC), but very effective.

Bob

[Horsman]

I thought we talked about this... Did a search and came up empty.  What I found in the MPC are four potential basic part numbers; 3C577, 3B564 and 3674 (which Ford seems to use somewhat interchangeably), and 3B361.  Refer to the attached file with pictures and part numbers.

I went with the C7OZ-3C577-B from Mustangs Etc. and am very happy with it.

Great information, thanks for sharing. The 3C577 looks like a winner to me.

Thanks for the pictures guys, it definitely helps.

[67gtasanjose]

I believe the plastic end may be another running change.
Early used a foam piece like a chunk cut from a water pipe insulation. Originals degraded and fell out.

I thought we talked about this... Did a search and came up empty.  What I found in the MPC are four potential basic part numbers; 3C577, 3B564 and 3674 (which Ford seems to use somewhat interchangeably), and 3B361.  Refer to the attached file with pictures and part numbers.

I went with the C7OZ-3C577-B from Mustangs Etc. and am very happy with it.

I resist following "the heard" on this detail without seeing or having seen images of UNRESTORED ORIGINAL EXAMPLES that may suggest otherwise.

Though my exposure to unrestored examples of 67 Mustangs or Cougars with the tilt column option is minimal, I haven't personally seen any indication that a chunk of hard nylon/plastic/rubber might have a chance of falling off of every UNRESTORED example I have seen. The suggestion AND images provided from the MPC do suggest that Ford used foam in this area. Am I missing something here to be so vigilant in my desire to hold out in following the herd?

John, you are correct that we have discussed this before and my end results from that previous research came back with FOAM insulation as being the correct choice.

What I see in Marty's picture (restored example), looks more like the bushing used on fixed columns, between the fixed column and the long shaft gear box. (though it does look very nice, I still hold out and wonder about its 'correctness').

Sorry guys, I am not yet convinced.

[ruppstang]

I resist following "the heard" on this detail without seeing or having seen images of UNRESTORED ORIGINAL EXAMPLES that may suggest otherwise.

Though my exposure to unrestored examples of 67 Mustangs or Cougars with the tilt column option is minimal, I haven't personally seen any indication that a chunk of hard nylon/plastic/rubber might have a chance of falling off of every UNRESTORED example I have seen. The suggestion AND images provided from the MPC do suggest that Ford used foam in this area. Am I missing something here to be so vigilant in my desire to hold out in following the herd?

John, you are correct that we have discussed this before and my end results from that previous research came back with FOAM insulation as being the correct choice.

What I see in Marty's picture (restored example), looks more like the bushing used on fixed columns, between the fixed column and the long shaft gear box. (though it does look very nice, I still hold out and wonder about its 'correctness').

Sorry guys, I am not yet convinced.

It has been so long since I restored the 67 GTA I can not say wit 100% certainty that the rubber bushing is original. I do not see many unrestored 67s, especially with a tilt column. I do have a extra 67 tilt column at the shop I will check it and see what is in it. It seems strange that Ford would use much more durable bushings on other and latter models and just put a piece of foam in the earlier tilt columns.

I checked the one on my shelf and it has no bushing.

[Horsman]

I thought we talked about this... Did a search and came up empty.  What I found in the MPC are four potential basic part numbers; 3C577, 3B564 and 3674 (which Ford seems to use somewhat interchangeably), and 3B361.  Refer to the attached file with pictures and part numbers.

I went with the C7OZ-3C577-B from Mustangs Etc. and am very happy with it.

Received mine today from Mustangs Etc., did yours have a split down the side like this one? 

[67gta289]

Yes it did

[Horsman]

Yes it did

Thanks John.

[196667Bob]

Mine also.

Bob

[67gtasanjose]

I resist following "the heard" on this detail without seeing ...


...John, you are correct that we have discussed this before and my end results from that previous research came back with FOAM insulation as being the correct choice.
...Sorry guys, I am not yet convinced.

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=15852.msg99449#msg99449

So. I went back to the other discussion to see better what was shared previously and perhaps why I felt just the foam was adequate.

I felt that a large chunk of rubber could not just "fall out" unless the lower coupler (rag joint) had been removed. Then I thought, why would that get misplaced or left out on multiple vehicles and deduced that foam CAN degrade and fall out easier than rubber and that PERHAPS the rubber one became used later in production as an improvement in design, less likely used in earlier examples which is actually opposite of what Bob had suggested in the other thread.

Bottom line, mine never had a "defective" rubber chunk, the MPC supports usage of the foam chunk (perhaps not "clearly enough") and I find no evidence of an insulator reported multiple times, suggesting the "deterioration of the foam insulator theory" as the most likely on at least my example.

I of course, could be wrong on my dedctions...