Topic: 67 289 San Jose Built with Thermactor Air Cleaner Decals C-Code & A-Code

[67gtasanjose]

We seem to only find EVIDENCE of just ONE Decal, aside from the Cubic Inch Displacement Decal, one on the side adjacent to the Oil Breather Cap.



We've found a 390 with a decal in this area but would this be the same as a small block?



Attached below is what I currently have on my A-code Thermactor but is it possibly incorrect?

[J_Speegle]

We seem to only find EVIDENCE of just ONE Decal, aside from the Cubic Inch Displacement Decal, one on the side adjacent to the Oil Breather Cap.

Agreed and will post other examples to document. There was likely/possibly a very small sticker at the front towards the passenger side with black print and border showing the air filter replacement part number like we've shown in another thread focused on 67 390 air cleaner decals

For others reading this thread we're also looking to confirm or uncover if Ford installed an addition decals to the lid of the air cleaner other than the cubic inch one as they did in earlier years. Or if this was a running change when did the change take place.


Don't believe having a thermactor system made a difference for this discussion but will roll with it for the time being

[J_Speegle]

Likely over doing the examples but we're looking for a couple of things. Evidence of decals on the lid and evidence on the base - drivers side. In some (one or more) of these examples the bases have been painted so the shadow is gone on those. So hoping volume helps get a better picture of what I have. Just showing examples with thermactor system and not those without but still built at San Jose that production year though I'm betting they are the same air cleaners for both applications from the same supplier. May have more examples these were already sorted frokm another discussion and investigation

As a reminder or comments all three of the decals were looking for were paper based with a clear coat of very thin film over the paper.

Going to try to post in production order as best I can


7R01C1127xx



7R01A1394xx The lid shows where there were possibly two stickers added to the front. At least one matches in size a state required emission sticker during the late 70 to 80's The other may be another required sticker depending on where this car was licensed, smogged and the system required at the time



7R01C154xxx



7R01C1547xx Base may have been repainted though snorkel and lid look possibly original



7R01C1680xx



7R01C1824xx



7R01C1848xx



7R03C1883xx



7R01C1977xx



7R02A1989xx



7R01C2043xx Believe that is the Sprint decal and the lid just rotated 180 degrees off. Base has been repainted, notice the wing nuts are,  so any adhesive from the side decal would be gone.  painted



7R01C2053xx



7R01C2071xx

[67gtasanjose]

...hoping volume helps get a better picture of what I have. Just showing examples with thermactor system and not those without but still built at San Jose that production year though I'm betting they are the same air cleaners for both applications from the same supplier.


7R01C154xxx

At least we see SOME of a most-likely side decal in this one image. It looks much like the decal on the side of that 390 air cleaner base (picture shared earlier in this thread).

I agree that likely the same supplier most likely provided all air cleaner assemblies to the San Jose plant (possibly other plants).
I also figure (translation: ASSUME) that the decals that were used, regardless the emissions options, varied only on the displacement decal.

As far as a "Running Change" of the decals used or omissions of any decals used at any particular Assembly date, this is perhaps the crux of this search.

Something to note: These 1967 C-Code & A-Code both use the FA-23, C5ZZ-9601-B Service Part. I have one NOS FA-23 Autolite filter in my inventory and two NOS FA-23 MOTORCRAFT filters in my inventory.

The thing I notice besides the visually obvious differences in these Service Items that may shed some light onto the theory of a possible Running Change of any decals used (or NOT used) is that the MOTORCRAFT boxes both have 1966 dates on the box flaps, suggesting that Ford Marketing had begun the switchover to MOTORCRAFT Service Pieces early on in 1967 model year production. Though the PART NUMBER and abbreviated Service Numbers of the replacement filters remains the same, no longer was AUTOLITE the name brand being used.
Can or could this change-over in Ford's Marketing play a role in yet another 1967 model-year Running Change?

[Bob Gaines]

You may have a up hill battle convincing many that Motorcraft name was being used on air cleaners in the 1960's . Start first with Wikipedia.

[67gtasanjose]

You may have a up hill battle convincing many that Motorcraft name was being used on air cleaners in the 1960's . Start first with Wikipedia.

I am referencing the date on the Motorcraft filter's box flaps. I have no dog in the race for other stances on the changeover time frame. If Ford Marketing back-dated the boxes, that is fine with me. There is no date coding on the filters themselves. According to Wikipedia, Ford Launched (and suspended) the Motorcraft name in the 50's. All of this is before my time but I can elaborate a bit on the 3 Service Part FA-23's I have and the boxes they arrived in though.

The Motorcraft filters that I have, both only have "MOTORCRAFT" embossed as well as the abbreviated Service number of "FA-23" on the rubber portion of the filter elements. The Autolite filter element that I have on hand has "AUTOLITE" and a "C4" part number embossed on the filter element (I can get pictures if desired) and the box the AUTOLITE filter arrived in has the C5ZZ- B service number, as well as the FA-23 number (only on the box end for shelf display,  no C5ZZ number nor FA-23 found on the Filter element rubber). That date on the AUTOLITE box flaps is smeared, so it is tough to make it out but looks more of a "rounded" character so less likely "4" or "6".

[67gtasanjose]

Continuing a look at other threads and the images of both small block and big block examples available so far within this site, it would appear that at least TWO decals were likely used at the location next to the oil breather cap, or side of the lower air cleaner housing. ONE that has the STAR AUTOLITE  logo and the other much the same but WITHOUT the Star in the AUTOLITE side of the decal. Going by VIN production (not actual build dates), as well as what we've all seen on spark plugs, the STAR example is most likely the EARLY version as the No Star version, looks to have carried into 1968 production.

I believe now that the decal I presently have, is incorrect but will wait before looking for any replacement. I did find the STAR version available at MACS. (I uploaded a screenshot of the REPRODUCTION they have)

[Ralf]

Additionally I would be interested in what colour(s) had been painted inside the bowl and lid regarding late 66. Any pics would be nice?
Thank you.

[J_Speegle]

At least we see SOME of a most-likely side decal in this one image. It looks much like the decal on the side of that 390 air cleaner base (picture shared earlier in this thread).

I agree that likely the same supplier most likely provided all air cleaner assemblies to the San Jose plant (possibly other plants).
I also figure (translation: ASSUME) that the decals that were used, regardless the emissions options, varied only on the displacement decal.


As far as a "Running Change" of the decals used or omissions of any decals used at any particular Assembly date, this is perhaps the crux of this search.

Good that we are forming a base to work from. I think I will start another non-San Jose thread so that we can at least see what side decals were being installed at the same time on at least cars built at other plants and in turn what was available, in the system at the time. Since the decals were not produced by the source for the air cleaners those may have all come from the same source and may provide some answers as to which (if there was more than one) side decal was available at certain time periods

A few other pictures of that same new AUTOLITE design side sticker from 289, 390 and 200 examples in this thread

https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16632.msg104270#msg104270

Something to note: These 1967 C-Code & A-Code both use the FA-23, C5ZZ-9601-B Service Part. I have one NOS FA-23 Autolite filter in my inventory and two NOS FA-23 MOTORCRAFT filters in my inventory.

For other than the part number (NOT the quick reference number) for the replacement filter that was likely on a small decal on the front passenger side I think the filter discussion another discussion. Don't agree that MOTORCRAFT was in use during the period we're discussing but till keep addition comments to myself for this discussion.

Will get working on the other examples for the other thread

[J_Speegle]

Additionally I would be interested in what colour(s) had been painted inside the bowl and lid regarding late 66. Any pics would be nice?
Thank you.

Kind of off thread. Using the search I found the following that may help. Used the search words "67 air cleaner paint " Appears I don't have enough examples to be able to show examples from every month or week

Appears you started that thread 

https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=24872.msg154529#msg154529

[Ralf]

Thanks Jeff. Seems I have got some leakage...

[67gtasanjose]

Old thread, same issue...I'm looking to update the decal on the side (by the oil filler cap).

Should I buy (reproduction) what is referred to as correct for 68?
Picture attached

[J_Speegle]

Old thread, same issue...I'm looking to update the decal on the side (by the oil filler cap).

Should I buy (reproduction) what is referred to as correct for 68?
Picture attached

Yes That's as close as your going to likely get and still be able to just order one.

Design as posted appears not to be exactly like an original. Few things off a bit when compared to the first post and that original example.

[67gtasanjose]

Yes That's as close as your going to likely get and still be able to just order one.

Design as posted appears not to be exactly like an original. Few things off a bit when compared to the first post and that original example.

I see some differences but...