Topic: Jacks - General Discussion Across 64-73

[Bob Gaines]

Bob/Jeff,  All good points here.  Ill make a few comments:

On the jack date codes I took a quick look at what I wrote (its been 10 years) and can probably be revised.  From what I know and understand now the Ausco jacks do not have date codes.  If you check on your side and look at all the jacks with the "A" stamping for Ausco they will not have date codes.  The other two typically did.  So we can say "most" jacks are date coded from 67 onwards, but not all. 

The jack manufacturers themselves were all roughly in the Michigan area.  From there they would ship the jacks to the different production facilities.  What I would say is possible is that for low production (as compared to normal Mustang production) cars like a Shelby assembled in CA they may have had one supplier ship the jacks directly there or supplied for those cars.  Maybe why you see one style jack being used.

But for sure as a general rule for Mustang production we cant say Dearborn only used one style, San Jose only used one style, and Metuchen only used one style.  Thats just not correct.

Make sense?

I like to use the word "typical" when talking about the different assemblyline jacks . That leaves room for the not so typical . Case in point your above statement "Maybe why you see one style jack being used." could be better phrased as "Maybe why you see one predominate style being used" . That word "predominate" leaves room for the other less common styles that are seen used.  I have learned from others to also try and stay away from "all" , "always" and "only" unless it is necessary . 

[J_Speegle]

Typing while Bob was posting   

...........But for sure as a general rule for Mustang production we cant say Dearborn only used one style, San Jose only used one style, and Metuchen only used one style.  Thats just not correct.

Make sense?

Depends on how you phrase the statement. We can argue about the application of "never" "only" "always" and I think we will both agree most of use leave those words out of responses at the same time we often make, what could be understood as basically the same comment by using the word "where". But enough of the English language discussion.  Not to be argumentative and just continuing a respectful discussion, we be rarely can say "only" but in maybe a few processes or parts since there is always a possible variation or mistake even.

Based on research we can say typically, usually, the vast majority of the time and so on when we discuss these details or when giving guidance to people that don't have a specific part and are looking for the best and most complete information. If we find that one plant used or was supplied by than more than one provider for jacks, lets see when those different products were used on the line and in turn we should be able to identify batches and runs so that we can better help and guide others to a better and hopefully right choice.

We have to be able and or willing to collect multiple data points from unrestored, original cars, compare them to others, while considering when they were completed to look for patterns if one possibly appears.  We should by now accept and understand that suppliers didn't ship parts individually one at a time so there will be supporting evidence from other cars built the same day or week of an anomaly. We all need to let the evidence guide us rather than letting us try and bend it to our current understanding alone. NOT suggesting that this is what anyone here is doing. Just a general statement.

This might be a good subject to start some plant by plant surveys to see what we can collect as we have with many other subject/parts, to see what additional understanding can be discovered.

[Bob Gaines]

The problem I see with a survey is that you may not get the most accurate information given many jacks have a high tendency of being replaced and the tendency of owners to be very protective of the integrity of their cars and insist that  "it must be original because it was with the car and my car is all original".

[Anghelrestorations]

Ok I will work on updating the article on the jacks here at some point soon.  Probably can do a related article on jack handles as well.
But going back to my original statement do we all agree that there is no such thing as a "NJ only" jack?  That was the point I was trying to make from the start and want to focus on that idea. 

[Bob Gaines]

Ok I will work on updating the article on the jacks here at some point soon.  Probably can do a related article on jack handles as well.
But going back to my original statement do we all agree that there is no such thing as a "NJ only" jack?  That was the point I was trying to make from the start and want to focus on that idea.

I agree in concept as long as it is used in proper context. If that was a stand alone statement for example the take away could be that there were no prevalent jacks used at NJ and Dearborn which for what ever reason seems to be the case.