Topic: Upper control arm change?

[ruppstang]

I am cleaning up my 68 High Country Special upper control arms. I noticed that one appeared to have the outer edge ground off I presume for tire clearance. I decided to look for another that had not been ground off. I since have looked at several different 68 and 69 cars that had the upper arms ground the same way. Did Ford make this change? Marty

[Bob Gaines]

I am cleaning up my 68 High Country Special upper control arms. I noticed that one appeared to have the outer edge ground off I presume for tire clearance. I decided to look for another that had not been ground off. I since have looked at several different 68 and 69 cars that had the upper arms ground the same way. Did Ford make this change? Marty

Yes Ford did that and for the clearance reasons you suspected. Because of cracking in the area between the rivets which was because the cutback design  the control arm was changed back for 69 without the cutback clearance . In 70 it went back to the cutback version but because of the three rivet configuration instead of four there was not the cracking issue like in the 68 version.  Bob

[ruppstang]

Thanks Bob,
For the information. I thought some one here would know. Does it seem odd that the two versions were on the same car? Thanks Marty

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob,
For the information. I thought some one here would know. Does it seem odd that the two versions were on the same car? Thanks Marty

Marty,at the badgering of one of my ill tempered country cousins (southern Indiana variety)  it has come to my attention that  I needed to be more specific on when the cutback design transitioned out of production and was well into the 69 model year probably around April . I always have thought it coincides with the introduction of the F 60 15 wide oval tires but not sure. Marty when I read about the one side being different it could be that the non cut back arm was left overs from the earlier 68 production . The non cutback style was used in 67 and maybe early 68. I hesitate to think that the cutback design started exactly at the beginning of 68 production because these things rarely wait for the production year change and are integrated into production as needed. I have seen other examples like one type of rear shock being used as if to use up old stock and the other side being the updated engineering number (hence different design). Ford may have been using up supplies . The most likely explanation is that it was a service replacement for some reason. You will have to be the final judge if that was the case or not. Bob

[J_Speegle]

Marty you might want to check for a date on the arms and compare that with your cars build date

Just a thought

[Bob Gaines]

Marty you might want to check for a date on the arms and compare that with your cars build date

Just a thought

I would be interested to see if you find any date codes.  I have often wondered if it was a vendor think or? I don't recall seeing any date codes on post 66 arms. Bob

[CharlesTurner]

IIRC, Tim's original uppers and lowers from his '68 GT350 were date-coded...

[Bob Gaines]

IIRC, Tim's original uppers and lowers from his '68 GT350 were date-coded...

Charles ,I find it a interesting observation. I am not disputing the observation just relating that I haven't observed that on the ones I have seen.   I can not remember observing any on post 66 Mustangs. I have found it somewhat strange that I haven't given the large cross section I figure I have seen but then again the line I am in is always the longest at the grocery store as well  They must not all be marked in that way with a date code. I certainly have seen a lot 67-69 upper and lowers that didn't have a date code and a large majority were not service units. That is if service units didn't receive the date codes like assemblyline units. I have a large pile of 20 pairs recently scavenged from AZ to go through yet on my floor so i will be looking closely. Bob   

[ruppstang]

I do not recall seeing any date codes on either of them when I cleaned them. I will check again tomorrow. The 68 HCS is a 7-16 build date and by what Bob said probbly should have cut back arms on both sides. Our 68 fastback is also a late build and has the cut back arms on both sides. I'll check them for build dates. Marty

[CharlesTurner]

The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look.  I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms.  Hopefully Tim can confirm.

[J_Speegle]

I would be interested to see if you find any date codes.  I have often wondered if it was a vendor think or? I don't recall seeing any date codes on post 66 arms. Bob

Can't report for sure that San Jose's supplier used them after 66 just have not checked closely to the 68 SJ cars I own or owned but thought (considering others from other plants have been found) it might be a possibility to help confirm that they were original or possibly replacement(s)

[Bob Gaines]

The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look.  I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms.  Hopefully Tim can confirm.

If they are in the same relavent place as the 65/66 ,thats where I have looked is there another place? Bob

[CharlesTurner]

If they are in the same relavent place as the 65/66 ,thats where I have looked is there another place? Bob

Same place as the earlier one. 

Can anyone confirm that there were different suppliers?  I haven't noticed any differences in the arms, other than possibly the boot retainer plates for the LCA's.  Of course, just talking about assembly line parts here, not service replacement.

[gtamustang]

The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look.  I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms.  Hopefully Tim can confirm.

Bob,

I will confirm. The 67 Metuchen coupe that I finished last spring had the original UCAs and LCAs and all 4 were date coded (and matched the assembly date). Also, the 68 Metuchen coupe that I am nearly finished with has correct date coded UCAs. The date codes are very hard to notice, expecially if you are not looking. Sometimes they look like extraneous stamping marks from the stamping process. I believe the dates were hand stamped after the ball joint was installed (another reason they tend to be faint).

For the record, look for the date code on the UCAs around the ball joint end, on the top side and on the LCAs on the side between where the U channel end and where the ball joint is. I think I have pictures of the UCA date codes on my home computer. Will look and possibly post tonight.

Oh, and since I still have the original UCAs from my long gone San Jose 67 convertible, I can confirm that these were date coded as well.

Regards,
Pete Morgan

[ruppstang]

I looked these over pretty well and found nothing on either one. It was too cold here today to get under the fastback.
I would like to see one so I know what to look for. Marty