Topic: C7ZE-A Exhaust Manifold Query

[Bossbill]

I thought I understood 67 exhaust manifolds until I found this right side one -- on my car.
My Mar 67 car should have the C4 exhaust on both sides. The driver's side does.
But the date code on the right side aligns with the engine build date yet is for T/E -- on a non-T/E car!

Both manifolds are in the same condition, although painted a light header color.
This leads me to believe that they were painted during an engine rebuild.
So, I'm thinking it is possible the right side is not original. And being a judged car I would get called out for having the wrong manifold on this car.

Now  Mannel says that the C7 manifolds were introduced in the April time frame. Boy, this manifold's date sure is early for that scenario. But right for my car.

I'm left with two questions.
-- Is it possible Ford actually installed an early C7 manifold on this car due to parts shortages or a mistake? That sounds very unlikely unless there are other instances of this occurrence.
-- Is this really a Jan 16, 1967 manifold? I've seen service manifolds but they usually have a 2 digit year.

[Bob Gaines]

A couple things to keep in mind . As far as the judged aspect, the thermactor manifold may be missed by some (judges not me now   ) especially given that unless you are in the Thoroughbred class date codes would be looked at. If in that more difficult class it would be a higher probability of the out of the ordinary thermactor manifold on a non thermactor car being discovered . Is it possible for whatever reason ? I suppose but not likely IMHO. More likely on a much later car IMHO. If it bothers you then I would go on the hunt.

[Bossbill]

I've pretty well resolved myself to getting another one or just a better pair.

But on the judging front the T/E cutouts are visible and while judges can't see the date or use the casting number they can see that it's not a standard manifold. I think a point loss is likely and deserved.

But the date still bugs me. That's really early for T/E. And if I have the date right, just highly coincidental.

[Bob Gaines]

I've pretty well resolved myself to getting another one or just a better pair.

But on the judging front the T/E cutouts are visible and while judges can't see the date or use the casting number they can see that it's not a standard manifold. I think a point loss is likely and deserved.

But the date still bugs me. That's really early for T/E.

Not a big surprise you came to that conclusion based on your previous actions.  I think you wanted your conscience IE the forum members to help make up your mind for you.

[J_Speegle]

But the date still bugs me. That's really early for T/E. And if I have the date right, just highly coincidental.

Fully understand and respect those that do things right rather than only "jump as high as necessary" to get trophy. Good judges also will realize when your goal was/is much higher than what is minimum required and expectations may change in the future at some point so you can be ahead of the curve in those situations.

Nice and early date but you never know if Ford was expecting California's requirements would take affect Jan 1 like normally takes place with state and federal regulations. Moving this over to the 67 Mustang section since it covers a wider readership than just in Shelby's

[Bossbill]

NOTE: The Following three posts were originally posted in a wanted ad for a pair of manifolds so moved and merged with the earlier thread above
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It appears from a few pics that I have that there are two versions of the C7ZE-A exhaust manifold. The one on ebay is a -A, but a service issue dated 75. This version does not appear to have the cutouts for thermactor. I don't have enough data to ascertain if an era correct version of the C7ZE-A exists without the cutouts.

I have a January 67 -A and it does have the thermactor cutouts. As can be seen by the pic below, the cutouts are cast into the manifold.

So we are left with two of the exact same cast number in two different configurations.

(I think Jeff may want this pulled from here and into the referenced thread above)

[67gta289]

So we are left with two of the exact same cast number in two different configurations.

Bill - you know this but some do not, so I'll add this for clarity.  There are a lot of nuances when talking about part numbers.  You are correct in referencing this as the "casting number".  Post-casting machining and in some cases sub-assembly operations can result in multiple variations.  Each variation would require (1) a need/use-case, (2) budgeting, (3) engineering (including drawings) at which time the "item part number" is solidified, (4) determination of manufacturer (could be outside supplier), and so on.  At some point it would also need to be determined if each item part number would need to be serviced, and if so a service part number would be applied. 

Also I would modify your statement "we are left with two..." and say that "we are left with at least two..."  Until something like this is exhaustively researched (pun intended) some additional variations might come up.

[jwc66k]

According to Mannell (Mustang and Fords Small Block V8), page 7-19, picture 7D4, "Beginning around 4/5/67, all California 289 HiPos were required to have T/E, so Ford switched to new HiPo exhaust manifolds." The date is mandatory if built after, but it does not say, refer or imply when Ford actually implemented the change to the new smog manifold. It takes months from "rumor", to "mandate", to "design", to "prototype", to "test", to "production", to "comply" with a date that fluctuates due to "politics". California was very "confused" about smog in those days. (California law states that cars built/sold after January 1st, 1966 shall have smog, yet all 1966 California bound Fords, Mustangs included, were equipped with smog equipment from production day 1, August 16, 1965. My 66 GT K Fastback Oct. build, San Jose, was "exempt". Supposedly because of a "limited production" model car.)
Jim

[Bossbill]

I think Ford was well aware of the impending January requirement for T/E and was beginning to tool up for that date.

A friend has a 12/66 dated T/E head on his unrestored 67 GT350. The car was built in May 67 and his block is just prior to that date. This is a wide date between block and heads but it appears that Ford had these in stock thinking January, but used these much later.

As noted earlier, I  have an early January C7ZE with T/E cast reliefs. This tells me that T/E parts were in hand. I think it's quite possible that non-T/E Hipos could be given either the regular or T/E manifold since they perform the same function. It's really hard to see the difference when installed.

All of the heads for Hipos were cast at the Cleveland Foundry. Windsor never made Hipo heads. On 67 C7ZE heads the casting were changed around the exhaust port to include an area which could be drilled for T/E. Of course, not all heads were so drilled.

The heads used on 2V and 4V T/E 289s were Windsor Foundry with the built in air manifold. This allowed the air to be ported into the ends of the heads rather than through an external manifold like the later Hipo heads. Again, the WF head could not be used for the Hipo without a redesign of the casting which may not have been cost effective.

Perhaps Ford asked for a waiver since the numbers were few or these cars were ignored ... for a while.