Topic: 64.5 clutch rod boot??

[CW4macret]

I have been told that my 64.5 came with a leather boot in front of the felt where the clutch rod goes through the fire wall. Does anyone have any information on this?

[J_Speegle]

This one?

Found using "64 clutch rod seal" in the search tool

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=4306.msg23826#msg23826

[CW4macret]

No Jeff. Mine has the felt seal in place. A MCA gold card judge told me there should be a leather boot on the engine side of of the firewall. I have been unable to find a picture or any reference in the 1964 shop manual.

[J_Speegle]

Sorry misunderstood but will look through my pictures and see if I have anything even close to that description. Don't recall ever seeing a leather boot or anyone mentioning such a part

[FXguy]

I have hundreds of pictures of June K codes.  They only have the pressed felt seal at the firewall.  I have heard that some very early 4 speed v8 cars had a leather seal on the bell housing clutch release lever instead of rubber, but cannot confirm on an unrestored car. 

-Scott

[J_Speegle]

Wonder, and if they did. why for would use a leather seal/boot there considering they had been using that same bell housing and arm placement for a number of years prior.

Not sure why they would use a different boot on a 4 speed than a 3 speed.  Hmm In any case Mac's question focused on the firewall seal.

Difficult spot to see in pictures. Haven't found a boot yet. The felt seal I'm finding up into Aug 64 so far. Need to check to see if that is on the running changes list for 65 and if not add that also.

[FXguy]

Wonder, and if they did. why for would use a leather seal/boot there considering they had been using that same bell housing and arm placement for a number of years prior.

Not sure why they would use a different boot on a 4 speed than a 3 speed. 

My guess has been that the bell housing leather boot never existed.   Likewise, the leather firewall seal didn't exist either...

Difficult spot to see in pictures. Haven't found a boot yet. The felt seal I'm finding up into Aug 64 so far. Need to check to see if that is on the running changes list for 65 and if not add that also.

Illustrated parts shows that the seal changeover from the felt to the rubber accordion seal occurred 12/16/64.   There is no other type of seal (i.e. leather) shown.

-Scott

[GT500KR]

My guess has been that the bell housing leather boot never existed.   Likewise, the leather firewall seal didn't exist either...


Illustrated parts shows that the seal changeover from the felt to the rubber accordion seal occurred 12/16/64.   There is no other type of seal (i.e. leather) shown.

-Scott

+1 Never have seen this or heard of it before. Not supported by any Ford catalogs I've ever seen either.

[CharlesTurner]

Also have never heard of a leather boot on the shift rod.  If you have the contact info on the judge(s), send them a query on if they can provide proof/documentation.

[CW4macret]

Thanks everyone. One less item to try and run down.

[midlife]

No Jeff. Mine has the felt seal in place. A MCA gold card judge told me there should be a leather boot on the engine side of of the firewall. I have been unable to find a picture or any reference in the 1964 shop manual.

Someone needs to find out who this MCA gold card judge is and find out why he said what he said. 

[mmsnyr8120]

Don't throw the judge under the bus.  I know Mac has gotten golds with his car. and to get a silver is a kick in the teeth.  But judges make mistakes and public shaming is not the answer.  When we had a problem, we got in touch with the judge first. If the judge is not 100% sure, give the benefit of the doubt.  Mac has a very nice car and is making an effort to improve his car.

[midlife]

Not trying to throw the judge under the bus, but perhaps something got lost or misplaced in communications.  I've read/heard that wiper shaft seals were leather early on (not sure if that is true or not...) but perhaps that was what was being referred to, or perhaps it was a shifter boot on the transmission.  If the complaint was in writing, then a query from MAC to the judge via MCA to clarify the point might be possible. 

[CharlesTurner]

Not trying to throw the judge under the bus, but perhaps something got lost or misplaced in communications. 

+1, I didn't take it that way either.  Thought it would be a learning opportunity, maybe it's a detail that has not come up before.

[Bob Gaines]

I don't know if we are talking first hand interaction or things being read on a judges sheet. A judges or scribe short hand explanation of a deduction on a judging sheet can sometimes be misinterpreted. Another thing is the judge or scribe in trying to make things fit in the space allotted can sometimes change the meaning of what the judge was trying to convey for the deduction.