Topic: Convertible Top Frame

[68 S Code]

Trying to verify if the top assembly (main structural frame) is the same part used in 65 thru 68 verts. I've seen people claim they are the same but wanted to verify. I've looked mine over and can't find any date codes on it. Are there any tell tale signs differing the years?

[J_Speegle]

Not a convertible guy but believe (seem to remember) that the header bow is different on a 68 - Others will surely correct- or agree

[CharlesTurner]

There are small differences here and there, they are not completely the same.  Believe we have a member here that has documented the differences and possibly compiling in book/notebook format that may be available in the future.  I know in '65 there were 2 different types of convertible top frames, mainly different in the side pocket cable configuration.

[T Lea]

I believe they will interchange as complete assemblies but there are slight differences

[68 S Code]

There is a very nice 66 frame which would be a great upgrade over the rusty 68 frame I have been left with (someone stole my original).  I was
 hoping to avoid complete disassembly, stripping, repainting and reassembly. Thoughts?

[J_Speegle]

There is a very nice 66 frame which would be a great upgrade over the rusty 68 frame I have been left with (someone stole my original).  I was hoping to avoid complete disassembly, stripping, repainting and reassembly. Thoughts?

No one said this was going to be easy    

Since there are differences and your restoring this car (you've sent allot of time doing research on allot of small details) don't really think its an option. Would you consider putting 67 seats in the car if you found a set the same color as your interior that you didn't have to redo??

Think not

[68 S Code]

A voice of reason. I guess it time to order a new 5 gallon bucket of evaporust and break out the tools.

[bryancobb]

A nice fella from down under, who goes by "dalorzof" on VMF has written a VEEERRRRRY thorough book on disassembling a frame, restoring it, and reassembling it.  Beautiful pictures and CAD drawings. 

Send him $20 and I'll bet he'll send you the PDF.

Bryan

[Oz390]

Thanks for the compliment Brian!

I lurk here as well!

"The book" is still "in progress"  It started as a "how to install a top" DIY guide, as when I did mine I could find nothing with any detail, a lot of "remove-the-old-top-than-staple-the-new-one-on-and-now-you're-done" types, but sorely lacking in any detail for how to really do it.  As I restored my 68, and found it was cobbled together from early 65-67 parts and some 68 parts back-in-the-day (I'm scared to think of what happened to the car based on the damage evidence I found when stripping the car back to bare metal).

It has now evolved into 300+ pages of a "65-68 Convertible" doc outlining all differencs I can find, but does not include sheet metal.  Top install, full documentation based on mostly the FAM's, but a few other retoration guides/books I have, frame parts, hydraulic system, electrical, interior items (switches, coathooks, latches, rear 1/4 panles, etc) and covers all the connections, with detailed drawings, down to part numbers for nuts, bolts, washers, a hundred or more pictures of all the differences I can document, etc, etc, etc....  also adding some info on comparing repro parts to the OEM I have on my '68 as a separate section (just started that effort). 

I am also working on an "off-car" install, trying to fabricate a jig to allow the top fabric to be stapled to the tack strips and frame as Ford did it, off the car, then move it all straight on.  No in-and-out fiddling to get the rear 1/4's taut on the tack strips (took me 10 times in-and-out each side to get mine looking good, but I'm just a DIY hack!).  But that may wait....

I am hoping to get it done sometime this year, it has become a huge task.  But is progressing.

If any convertible owners have known original cars, and would like to contribute photos to include and/or verification I'll give full credit and will give a copy of the final book to any I use data from (in whatever form I finally decide to publish in). I have a '68, 4 frames I have purchased over the years, and have some info on early years from various folks, but if I had a known 64 1/2, a '65 (later prodcution to show differences I believe happened during the run), a 66 and a 67 to spot check and verify to it would be very helpful.  Finding original cars to compare to here in Brisbane, Australia is a bit tough!  Any volunteers?

I am working on the assumption that these cars are fairly consistent across plants, but that is based purely on lack of cars to compare in detail, and I fear if  go that route the book will never be completed due to the potential complexity of documenting to that level.  I can guarantee that once done it will be the most comprehensive and complete document ever put together on this arcane and mostly useless topic! 
 
P.S.  I do give out the how-to on installing a top, but the rest has set me back thousands of $$ buying parts to document and compare, so the final "bible" will be a for-sale item to recover a small part of my financial investment, not to mention the hundreds of hours I have put into this effort over the past 4+ years...

[Oz390]

On the original question:

The biggest differnce between 65-67 and 68 frames is the main hinge over the window.  In 65-67 it is a lump-o-cast-metal with a pressed pin and two nylon bushess.  in '68 it changes to an open U shape, with a pin and bushings similar to that used on a door hinge (no parts are reproduced but a carefully cut down door pin and bushings are so close it would be very hard to spot the replacement).  It also has a small camber adjustment screw at the hinge.  So if you want "correct" on a 68 using a 65-7 is a dead giveaway and is easy to spot.

As Charles notes the side cable also changed, but this was an early/late 65 item (I think).  Thre were two changes here, the origianl cables attached to a bracket with a threaded stud and nut at the rear, later change to a metal spring and loop.  On the front the orignal attacehmtn was a metal C clip and screw, later cahnged to a ball that slips into a slot.  Subtle but very differnt and can be spotted if you look carefully.  I think these two changes occured at different times as well.

A few more items are; coathooks plastic/rubber in 68, metal in 65-67. The header garnish also chaged as in 68 the rear view mirro was mounted to the glass, not the header.

There are more... 

I do not think frame parts have date codes, the header and some clamp bits have cast numbers, but I do not recall date codes, will have to recheck.  But most have no markings whatsoever.

So, as noted, while a 66 frame will "fit" it is not correct, and is easy to spot (takes about 2 seconds). And as this is the concours forum I'd think that would matter.  I find it odd that MCA makes zero mention of any of this in judging???

[CharlesTurner]

Concerning MCA Judging regarding top frames, it's just something that hasn't been studied like other areas.  I'm sure if some folks (like yourself) spent the time to document the differences and presented them, we could find a way to get it into the rulebook.

[bryancobb]

Dalorzof,
Guess I should be glad I was on my best behavior, huh?   

[Oz390]

So who do I present it to for consideration, verification and documentation? 

[CharlesTurner]

So who do I present it to for consideration, verification and documentation? 

Well, you have the following MCA representatives that post regularly on this forum:

Myself-Head Judge for 1st/2nd generation
Mike Murray (mgmradio), 64.5-66 Head Judge
Pete Morgan (gtamustang), 67-68 Head Judge
Jeff Speegle, Early Shelby Head Judge
Bob Perkins, MCA Technical Advisor and former MCA Head Judge

I think any one of those would be a good start!   

[J_Speegle]

............ So, as noted, while a 66 frame will "fit" it is not correct, and is easy to spot (takes about 2 seconds). And as this is the concours forum I'd think that would matter.  I find it odd that MCA makes zero mention of any of this in judging???

This is the sort of things that makes up the knowledge base of the MCA rules and the hobby in general. An owner finds an area where the research and knowledge has been minimal, lacking or just was not completely researched in the past and out of necessity  does the research and the outcome is a better understand.

And in this way allot of people contribute part of the puzzle pushing the "ball" further down the road towards the goal.  But peer review is a notable and recommended part of the process as we have always known - none of us are as smart or experienced individually as we are as a whole - leading us to the purpose and focus of this forum