Topic: 68 San Jose Lower Control Arms Camber Bolts

[bullitt68]

I had discussed the subject in my build thread, but now I am questioning it, as I was just at MCACN on the weekend and I inspected the Mustangs that were there including several survivors, and all of them has the the bolt head showing from the front when looking into the engine bay. My bolts were in the same orientation when I got my car like below





After asking several questions on my build thread, my understanding was that the nut side should be facing out towards the front of the car. and visible from the front like below





Just  double checking before I drop the motor in as it will be much easier to change them around before had. Any suggestions?

[ruppstang]

I have a 68 SJ unrestored car and the head is to the front and nut to the back. That is how I have found most of my restoration projects. I cannot say with certainly that all 68's were built that way.

[dkknab]

I have a 68 SJ unrestored car and the head is to the front and nut to the back. That is how I have found most of my restoration projects. I cannot say with certainly that all 68's were built that way.

+1

My Metuchen 68 with a 289 has bolt heads forward too. Here's a picture of the underside of my car before I did anything showing the driver side.

[bullitt68]

I have a 68 SJ unrestored car and the head is to the front and nut to the back. That is how I have found most of my restoration projects. I cannot say with certainly that all 68's were built that way.

Thanks Marty that is what I thought. I must have misunderstood and or misinterpreted the original post

[bullitt68]

+1

My Metuchen 68 with a 289 has bolt heads forward too. Here's a picture of the underside of my car before I did anything showing the driver side.

Thanks Dave great reference shot

[Bob Gaines]

I have a 68 SJ unrestored car and the head is to the front and nut to the back. That is how I have found most of my restoration projects. I cannot say with certainly that all 68's were built that way.

+1 .I can't count the number of times I have seen the camber bolt assembly installed in the bolt head forward configuration. Maybe not always but I have a high confidence level it was the prevailing practice regardless of plant.

[bullitt68]

+1 .I can't count the number of times I have seen the camber bolt assembly installed in the bolt head forward configuration. Maybe not always but I have a high confidence level it was the prevailing practice regardless of plant.

Thanks Bob that is what I thought. I will have to go back and read my thread somehow I must have misunderstood the post. Perhaps another senior moment, I seem to be having many when it comes to this build

[J_Speegle]

Thought we covered this in another thread or in your build thread.

In fact here are some of the pictures what were posted in that discussion.For 68 and San Jose I feel very comfortable that the vast majority were installed as shown below. Easy for us at times to mix up years and plants after all the cars we have seen. One of the reasons I keep so many pictures with matching VINs documented. Might be able to find one in reverse but can't say for certain that I could or that a few got installed in reverse by a fill in worker when one of the regulars was not working for some unknown reason. Ore might also have been some where in the car's life when a lower was repaired or replaced

[J_Speegle]

Took a while but went through my picture collection of unrestored 68 San Jose cars and found forty eight cars were the the hardware attaching the lower a arms to the unibody and of those forty eight cars only three had them installed from the front of the car with the nut towards the rear. I've listed those three (shortened) VINs below so we can look and see if these are related to a production period and possibly a single non-regular worker filling in for a short period of time at that station at San Jose during the 68 production year

8R13432x
8R13850x
8R15377x

[ruppstang]

Our 68 SJ head facing forward 8R01C165795.

[jwc66k]

The 1968 "Mustang Chassis Assembly Manual" (AM0025) pages 28 thru 30, all show the adjusting bolt going from front to rear - nut at rear (as does the 67 Mustang Chassis Manual) and the same direction, front to rear is shown in the 75 edition of Ford Car Parts (aka, the infamous MPC) in the illustrations section (no mention of direction in the text). All three only show the left hand installation. There is no written instructions in any of those three documents.
A couple of question remain:
What does the 1968 Service Manual have (and the 67 plus others) for instructions?
Could this be a "tool" clearance installation?
Jim

[J_Speegle]

Our 68 SJ head facing forward 8R01C165795.

Thanks that helps place your example in comparison to the others

The 1968 "Mustang Chassis Assembly Manual" (AM0025) pages 28 thru 30, all show the adjusting bolt going from front to rear - nut at rear (as does the 67 Mustang Chassis Manual) and the same direction, front to rear is shown in the 75 edition of Ford Car Parts (aka, the infamous MPC) in the illustrations section (no mention of direction in the text). All three only show the left hand installation. There is no written instructions in any of those three documents.
A couple of question remain:
What does the 1968 Service Manual have (and the 67 plus others) for instructions?
Could this be a "tool" clearance installation?
Jim

IMHO those books and documents  carry very little weight when compared to how cars were actually built. May just be how the plant workers and managers choose to do it for one reason or another. Can  see that possibly the order of assembly, it appears that the installation of this bolt, easier if done before the cross member when installed from the rear as we've now found was the typical practice at San Jose and at other plants they may have installed the cross member first. Haven't looked into those plants and this details yet but might be helpful if members see a need.

[jwc66k]

IMHO those books and documents  carry very little weight when compared to how cars were actually built. May just be how the plant workers and managers choose to do it for one reason or another. Can  see that possibly the order of assembly, it appears that the installation of this bolt, easier if done before the cross member when installed from the rear as we've now found was the typical practice at San Jose and at other plants they may have installed the cross member first. Haven't looked into those plants and this details yet but might be helpful if members see a need.

I guess you are advocate of just dumping all the parts in a pile and let the assembly line workers pick out what they want. 
I bring to your attention the discussion on the direction of shock shield (the official name "Bracket Assy, Front suspension Bumper", C4AB-3382 & 3) is hardware on 65 Mustangs built in Dearborn. This practice was narrowed down to one worker on a (night) shift.
In the case of the lower arm adjusting bolt, there's one more "possibility": The conventional wisdom is that all assembly line workers were adverse to change - "That's the way we always done it."
I bring to the discussion - A BOOK (gasp), in this case the "1964 1/2- 1965 Mustang Chassis Assembly Manual" (AM0005) pages 6-8, that show the (non-adjusting) bolt coming from the rear to the front of the car. Just to verify the accuracy of the book, I looked at my 65 GT Fastback and 66 GT Fastback (both San Jose cars, parked conveniently in my garage) and they are both assembled that way.
Jim

[bullitt68]

Thought we covered this in another thread or in your build thread.

Yes you are correct we did discus it in my build thread, but I wanted to double check to be safe as I have not seen any bolts installed with the nut at the front side only on the back side of the motor

[J_Speegle]

Yes you are correct we did discus it in my build thread, but I wanted to double check to be safe as I have not seen any bolts installed with the nut at the front side only on the back side of the motor

Understand and why I was more than willing to again post the picture from the other thread and take an hour to go through and get a specific count of examples comparing the two different directions 

I guess you are advocate of just dumping all the parts in a pile and let the assembly line workers pick out what they want. 

Nope but in some cases, some stations refilling the station was handled differently from other stations and parts

I bring to your attention the discussion on the direction of shock shield (the official name "Bracket Assy, Front suspension Bumper", C4AB-3382 & 3) is hardware on 65 Mustangs built in Dearborn. This practice was narrowed down to one worker on a (night) shift.

Of course you appear to be referring to a different year and plant but have never heard that the direction of the bolts at Dearborn was tied to "one worker on a night shift" The directions are pretty consistent for those cars your referring to.

In the case of the lower arm adjusting bolt, there's one more "possibility": The conventional wisdom is that all assembly line workers were adverse to change - "That's the way we always done it."

Yes that might explain a fill in worker pulled from another station or assignment to fill in for Bill on the second shift that is sick one day and he remembers doing the job two years ago when he was assigned there repeating what he use to do but for the regular workers doing the job in 1968 it appears that they had moved on and were following the practices shown in the survey.
 
Not saying that a different production year or even plant did not installed them differently just offering evidence of how they were built rather than other thoughts, plans or directions Being the devil's advocate is easy since its a lot of well it could be or might have been. We see that all the time at shows when some one is trying not to lose a point over a choice the restorer made.

As we've mentioned before. If you can document how the car was originally built its often the best choice to replicate what was done but when there is no evidence from the your particular car due to part changing, documentation  or other reasons go with what can be documented on cars from same plant and production period as the second best choice.