Topic: Undercoating question

[k-code]

Quick few questions on undercoating.

I have searched and read many threads but want to confirm my understanding after the research.

Dearborn Dec 64 coupe with undercoating (noted on the original sales order, not on the window sticker).
Not undertaking a frame off.

Am I correct that for a driver concours, the undercoating should be removed?

And, am I also correct that the undercoating would have been applied by the dealer, and never by the factory?

And lastly, sound deadening would never have been applied in the transmission/driveshaft tunnel? (I ask this question as the application in the tunnel is more uniform than the rest of the undercoating on the belly pans).

Thanks

[carlite65]

Am I correct that for a driver concours, the undercoating should be removed?
no. undercoating is allowed in concours driven.

And, am I also correct that the undercoating would have been applied by the dealer, and never by the factory?

yes. factory applied sound deadner as needed depending on model.

[jwc66k]

And, am I also correct that the undercoating would have been applied by the dealer, and never by the factory?

Yes.
In most New England dealerships (Mopar and GM included), for dealer stock vehicles, undercoating was automatically done. A customer "ordered" vehicle was at the customers' discretion - usually yes. In New England, and other Northern States, salt is used on roads in winter - A LOT.

And lastly, sound deadening would never have been applied in the transmission/driveshaft tunnel? (I ask this question as the application in the tunnel is more uniform than the rest of the undercoating on the belly pans).

For this, I think looking at the 65 Mustang Body Assembly Manuals INTENT should be used. Sound deadened is shown applied to wheel wells and not to any part of the under body.
If you don't have a set of the Mustang assembly manuals I strongly recommend you get a set.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

Am I correct that for a driver concours, the undercoating should be removed?

The intent and aim is to return the car back to the way the car was originally as built (in your case Dearborn) by Ford

And, am I also correct that the undercoating would have been applied by the dealer, and never by the factory?

Correct.
A few decades back many in the hobby choose to identify the produces applied for this purpose as "sound deadener" for factory applications and "undercoating" for products applied by dealer or aftermarket

And lastly, sound deadening would never have been applied in the transmission/driveshaft tunnel? (I ask this question as the application in the tunnel is more uniform than the rest of the undercoating on the belly pans).

For you year and plant correct that is different from other years and models but that does not apply to yours. There may be splattering of applications from covering other areas of the car/undercarriage but not intentional and no where near the driveline or transmission tunnel.

IMHO I would not follow the Assembly Manual illustrations related to this subject as they will show edge to edge application sin the areas they did apply it and that is not how workers applied the produces. Invite you instead to look at the examples already posted in threads (same plant and period as your car) or in the unrestored picture section. If you don't find what you need please start a focused thread and we'll provide some addition examples in an effort to help
 

[k-code]

Thanks for the replies.

Jim, I have the Osborn paper copies of the assembly manuals. Extremely difficult to read without a magnifying glass and even then it's a pain for these old eyes. Maybe the digital reproductions are better? But yes, only deadener is mentioned, but wanted to double check.

My car is on blocks 2' off the ground. I'll have to think on this as far as removing the undercoating. I'd like to get down to metal but man, what a job without being on a rotisserie.

Jeff, I did check the unrestored threads for Dearborn, and close to my build date, but didn't see anything with undercoating so felt a confirmation was required. I don't think a separate thread is required as its a pretty clear, do I remove or not, issue for me.

Where can I get the MCA guidelines for the various classes? I'm a member of the local chapter but they don't have any links on their website. Actually their website has been down for the last while.

[carlite65]

if you are MCA member then you can view/download the rules from their website.

[k-code]

if you are MCA member then you can view/download the rules from their website.

I am a local MCA club member but I'm not clear if that provides access to the big club.

[carlite65]

is your club mca a chartered regional group? IF you are mca then you should have member card & number. if you have that then you have access to mustang.org

[k-code]

is your club mca a chartered regional group? IF you are mca then you should have member card & number. if you have that then you have access to mustang.org

Yes it is, and I have a card and #. I'll figure it out. Thanks!

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks for the replies.

Jim, I have the Osborn paper copies of the assembly manuals. Extremely difficult to read without a magnifying glass and even then it's a pain for these old eyes. Maybe the digital reproductions are better? But yes, only deadener is mentioned, but wanted to double check.

My car is on blocks 2' off the ground. I'll have to think on this as far as removing the undercoating. I'd like to get down to metal but man, what a job without being on a rotisserie.

Jeff, I did check the unrestored threads for Dearborn, and close to my build date, but didn't see anything with undercoating so felt a confirmation was required. I don't think a separate thread is required as its a pretty clear, do I remove or not, issue for me.

Where can I get the MCA guidelines for the various classes? I'm a member of the local chapter but they don't have any links on their website. Actually their website has been down for the last while.

I prefer the paper. Yes I have to use reading glasses and sometimes a magnifying glass The digital takes longer to look through . I prefer the paper but that is just me. To each their own.

[k-code]

I prefer the paper. Yes I have to use reading glasses and sometimes a magnifying glass The digital takes longer to look through . I prefer the paper but that is just me. To each their own.

I do too too and thats why I ordered paper. I always print off the service manual pages for the section I'm working on for that reason.

[jwc66k]

All my "Jim Osborn Reproductions" Mustang Manuals' pages are 8 1/4 X 14 inches. Did they reduce the sizes?
Jim

[k-code]

All my "Jim Osborn Reproductions" Mustang Manuals' pages are 8 1/4 X 14 inches. Did they reduce the sizes?
Jim

Yes same size, but the print is really small and light in shade. Difficult to read, at least for me.

[Bob Gaines]

The reality is that although some of the pages are light because of used originals they were copied from, I feel very fortunate that we at least have what we got. 

[jwc66k]

Yes same size, but the print is really small and light in shade. Difficult to read, at least for me.

Got some specific pages you can't read? we might be able to fill in some of the questionable parts.

The reality is that although some of the pages are light because of used originals they were copied from, I feel very fortunate that we at least have what we got. 

Contrary to what you were taught in school, mark up the books with additional info. For example, my 66 Electrical manual has been marked up to indicate where the wiring harness labels are located. You can't do that on a brown paper bag.
Jim