Topic: ac shield 69 Dearborn 428 CJ

[cob428]

Does anyone have any pictures of the shield for the a/c cars All I can find is the cars without a/c

[7Lscjracer]

C9ZA-B is the one you want pictured here: https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-firewall-shield

[Bob Gaines]

C9ZA-B is the one you want pictured here: https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-firewall-shield

To further clarify there has been discussion about this on the forum before if you want to try a search. The examples shown on the website link posted are inaccurate and confusing. Typically information on the site is just the opposite and very informative. The on the left 69/70 .The one on the right in the example is for a 67/68  The bolt patterns are different so don't get confused on that issue. What it doesn't tell you is that there is a A/C 67/68 version and a non A/C 67/68 version. The same can be said for the 69/70 versions.  The proper one for A/C is one with the long finger. The long finger is to protect the expansion valve and A/C lines. The proper one with the finger cut off or bent down is for the non A/C . With that said they were used haphazardly with A/C ones used on non A/C cars and vise versa. In concours I can't in good conscience  deduct for the wrong one used in a given application knowing how they are found in the real world.I will typically make a mention with no deduction. Another thing to mention is that they were supposed to be taken off after the engine was installed but rarely if ever did. They were installed prior to the firewall being sealed so there should be sealer over the forward edge and nuts. If one is missing (some people swear theirs never came with one ) then there better be a witness line from the sealer of the missing shield .In concours we only deduct if the missing shield area does not have the appropriate witness line of sealer.

[J_Speegle]

My observations mirror Bob's in that the only pattern "long or short finger" is the lack of a pattern due to reuse it appears or workers just grabbing and making due. Would report that I found allot more of the "new" style with the long "finger" on non-AC cars in 69 than the short on AC car's for some reason.

Below is an example were the long finger style was installed on a non-AC car. Have plenty

It is also offered in an attempt to show the shadow that would be produced with the shield in place when the firewall sealant was applied. Yes area appears to have been rattle canned with black but you can see the firewall sealant and the fairly sharp edge where it stops along the top edge near the attachment spot




Currently there are examples of all the versions available on Ebay for a price.

[cob428]

I have the short finger one and by your pictures Jeff I take it that the shield should also have sealant, undercoating or whatever we call it now.

[sah62]

To further clarify there has been discussion about this on the forum before if you want to try a search. The examples shown on the website link posted are inaccurate and confusing. Typically information on the site is just the opposite and very informative.

Please help me understand what needs to be changed, Bob. I'm not interested in publishing incorrect or misleading information. My descriptions of the pictures are based on comparisons with the original engineering drawings for the pictured parts.

[sah62]

If I understand what Bob wrote above correctly, there are basically 4 combinations of component here: the 1967/1968 vs 1969/1970 bases, and the finger vs. no finger thing. Bob, I believe you're saying that there should be 4 different parts, correct? I haven't seen any mention of an engineering or service part number for a "no finger" 1967/1968 shield, but it's certainly possible that one exists in some earlier manual that I haven't found.

I also believe that you're saying that the long finger styles were used on cars with a/c, correct? I've attached a picture from the 1970 Osborn electrical assembly manual that shows an illustration (page E0-695-10) of the "no finger" C9ZA-B shield installed on a car equipped with a/c. I get that there might be a consistency issue here because that same manual (page E0-605-3) shows the same C9ZA-B shield being used on a car without a/c.

I've also attached a shot from a February, 1970-dated master Parts catalog page showing the three shield part numbers that I'm aware of.

[Bob Gaines]

If I understand what Bob wrote above correctly, there are basically 4 combinations of component here: the 1967/1968 vs 1969/1970 bases, and the finger vs. no finger thing. Bob, I believe you're saying that there should be 4 different parts, correct? I haven't seen any mention of an engineering or service part number for a "no finger" 1967/1968 shield, but it's certainly possible that one exists in some earlier manual that I haven't found.

I also believe that you're saying that the long finger styles were used on cars with a/c, correct? I've attached a picture from the 1970 Osborn electrical assembly manual that shows an illustration (page E0-695-10) of the "no finger" C9ZA-B shield installed on a car equipped with a/c. I get that there might be a consistency issue here because that same manual (page E0-605-3) shows the same C9ZA-B shield being used on a car without a/c.

I've also attached a shot from a February, 1970-dated master Parts catalog page showing the three shield part numbers that I'm aware of.

Scott,yes 4 different types. You can understand that the long finger logically when extended protects the expansion valve and hose connections better then the cut off version. The cut off version or when the finger is bent down is logical to use with the heater motor given it dose not extend past. I can understand how the illustration can cause confusion. I have never researched the engineering number of the parts as I have always only been concerned with the appearance of the part as it pertains to what happens in the real world. I should have reached out to you in the past to bring this to your attention but kept forgetting for one reason or the other . I hope you forgive me . The haphazard way that the brackets are used is also a mystery but as Spec Ed says "that's just the way it is" . Keep up the good fight.

[67gta289]

From the world of the MPC I came up with:

Ford part name - Shield - Air Conditioner Valve and Heater Motor

1. C7ZZ-19C842-A --> 1967-68 390
2. C9ZZ-19C842-A --> 1969-70 390 & 428 (except 428CJ) with integral A/C
3. C9ZZ-19C842-B --> 1969-70 428CJ with integral A/C

Note that the C7ZZ version was not listed in the 67 one year only MPC.

I'm not saying that there were not 4 versions supplied at the factory, I'm just reporting data that supports at least 3.

[Bob Gaines]

From the world of the MPC I came up with:

Ford part name - Shield - Air Conditioner Valve and Heater Motor

1. C7ZZ-19C842-A --> 1967-68 390
2. C9ZZ-19C842-A --> 1969-70 390 & 428 (except 428CJ) with integral A/C
3. C9ZZ-19C842-B --> 1969-70 428CJ with integral A/C

Note that the C7ZZ version was not listed in the 67 one year only MPC.

I'm not saying that there were not 4 versions supplied at the factory, I'm just reporting data that supports at least 3.

I have a high confidence level that is the same information Scott derived his direction from. Not trying to diminish the importance of information gained by documentation in manuals and books but yes there is sometimes not often a difference between whats in written books,manuals and engineering drawings/direction and what is found boots on the ground in real world observations. Rarely but sometimes. The heater shields were supposed to be taken off too according to what is found in documentation. I think the majority are in agreement that was not the case. If both the written documentation matches the found evidence is the best confirmation of what was done in the past IMHO.

[Bob Gaines]

It may be that the 67 /68 part had one engineering/part number and the part was modified as needed. In 69 and 70 Ford decide to distinguish the difference between the two . As far as intended usage is anyone's guess. Just some more thoughts.

[sah62]

It may be that the 67 /68 part had one engineering/part number and the part was modified as needed. In 69 and 70 Ford decide to distinguish the difference between the two . As far as intended usage is anyone's guess. Just some more thoughts.

Bob, would you happen to have a picture of the 1967/1968 version without the finger?

[J_Speegle]

I have the short finger one and by your pictures Jeff I take it that the shield should also have sealant, undercoating or whatever we call it now.

Since the heater, brake lines, electrical pass throughs and other items (no engine ground wire) were attached to the firewall after the black paint was applied but before the sealant  yes we would expect some to be on the bracket and other items following a logical pattern across the surface area. Like much related to this particular subject IMHO I do have examples were it appears that a worker skipped installing a shield but that would be non-typical at this point and very rare so far in the research as well as a different year than your car. I include it only so that I'm complete transparent in my offering of findings and not something to duplicate on a different car.

Sorry the thread has taken on a different direction. May split the discussion since we've moved on past your focus and onto a discussion of all of the shield variations from 67-70

[J_Speegle]

From the world of the MPC I came up with:

Ford part name - Shield - Air Conditioner Valve and Heater Motor

1. C7ZZ-19C842-A --> 1967-68 390
2. C9ZZ-19C842-A --> 1969-70 390 & 428 (except 428CJ) with integral A/C
3. C9ZZ-19C842-B --> 1969-70 428CJ with integral A/C

Note that the C7ZZ version was not listed in the 67 one year only MPC.

The MPC doesn't make much sense IMHO and appears to be missing a number of applications and as mentioned appears to not follow the practices of the plants or the workers.  Must just be a mistake as I can't figure out how a 69-70 CJ shield with AC would differ in shape or area of coverage from a 69 390 with AC

Might as well drop in the discussion the other prior discussions on the overall 67-70 shield question

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=15248.0

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=13031.15

[67gta289]

Here are a few pics from a 67 390 Dearborn car that I pulled out of a junkyard