« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?  (Read 3895 times)

Offline Paperback Writer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« on: September 28, 2012, 07:27:03 PM »
Please forgive me if this has already been asked before - I did try searching for it first, but couldn't quite find a definitive answer...

Were the bushing ends of the upper control arms dipped in black paint for 1967, or were they left un-dipped?  I've seen '67's UCA's restored both ways, so I'm not sure.  My question is for the San Jose cars in particular, but I would also be interested in what they did at Dearborn and Metuchen as well...
Logged
1967 390 GTA Convertible
7R03S110###
76B - V - 6U - 30J - 72 - 1 - U
(Actually built on 9/22/1966 - Eight days ahead of schedule)

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24541
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 07:54:37 PM »
Currently the belief and expectation is that the uppers were supplied to the line all natural (not dipped) while service replacements were still being supplied as  dipped
Logged
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9236
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2012, 12:55:33 AM »
Quote from: J_Speegle on September 28, 2012, 07:54:37 PM
Currently the belief and expectation is that the uppers were supplied to the line all natural (not dipped) while service replacements were still being supplied as  dipped
+1
Logged
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline Paperback Writer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2012, 12:24:24 PM »
Thanks guys.  That will save me trouble of buying a couple gallons of black paint - and potentially making a huge mess in the garage!
(Well, at least until it comes time to do the lowers...)
Logged
1967 390 GTA Convertible
7R03S110###
76B - V - 6U - 30J - 72 - 1 - U
(Actually built on 9/22/1966 - Eight days ahead of schedule)

Offline bryancobb

  • Silver Level Subscriber
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • 2009 Ridn' Around
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2012, 02:08:34 PM »
Quote from: J_Speegle on September 28, 2012, 07:54:37 PM
Currently the belief and expectation is that the uppers were supplied to the line all natural (not dipped) while service replacements were still being supplied as  dipped

Jeff,

I know this thread is for a 67, but would this also be true for my MAR 66 Metuchen car?
Logged
66 Metuch Conv
Nightmist, Std Blu Int
6T08C223904    76A       K         22       15c     21      6        6
                      BODY  COLOR   TRIM    DATE   DSO   AXLE  XMSN
   C/O  785                                   (rotation #)
   16    C14   6T08C223904        (weld bay 16, bucked MAR 14)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9236
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2012, 04:42:17 PM »
Quote from: bryancobb on October 01, 2012, 02:08:34 PM
Jeff,

I know this thread is for a 67, but would this also be true for my MAR 66 Metuchen car?
No it would not be the same because that would be for a 66 production car and not a 67 production car which is the subject of this thread that as you admit you are aware. :o
Logged
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline bryancobb

  • Silver Level Subscriber
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • 2009 Ridn' Around
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2012, 06:45:32 PM »
Well THAT was tactful.  Been just as easy to answer yes or no.  And my question was not "Is it the SAME?"  My question was "Would that also be true for a MAR 66 Metuchen car?"
I'm sure I just lost 100 points if YOU ever judge my car.  :)
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 06:50:13 PM by bryancobb »
Logged
66 Metuch Conv
Nightmist, Std Blu Int
6T08C223904    76A       K         22       15c     21      6        6
                      BODY  COLOR   TRIM    DATE   DSO   AXLE  XMSN
   C/O  785                                   (rotation #)
   16    C14   6T08C223904        (weld bay 16, bucked MAR 14)

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7310
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2012, 07:22:25 PM »
"Tact" is not a pre-requsite to any forum.
Jim
Logged
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9236
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2012, 07:27:11 PM »
Quote from: bryancobb on October 01, 2012, 06:45:32 PM
Well THAT was tactful.  Been just as easy to answer yes or no.  And my question was not "Is it the SAME?"  My question was "Would that also be true for a MAR 66 Metuchen car?"
I'm sure I just lost 100 points if YOU ever judge my car.  :)
Brian ,It is obvious tact didn't work here. I don't know what kind of answer you were looking for but sorry if my response bothered to the point of feeling compelled to lower yourself to make a inappropriate sarcastic remark. I will try and be clearer for you. 66 production cars regardless of plant are typically half dipped. They are not the subject of this thread and why you would ask knowing it wasn't appropriate (as you admitted in your post knowing) is confusing to me.  I only judge cars as I see them and not based on previous less then appropriate posts or sarcastic responses.  :D
Logged
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline bryancobb

  • Silver Level Subscriber
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • 2009 Ridn' Around
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2012, 07:31:12 PM »
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 01, 2012, 07:27:11 PM
...I don't know what kind of answer you were looking for...

Just a simple yes or no would have been very efficient.
Logged
66 Metuch Conv
Nightmist, Std Blu Int
6T08C223904    76A       K         22       15c     21      6        6
                      BODY  COLOR   TRIM    DATE   DSO   AXLE  XMSN
   C/O  785                                   (rotation #)
   16    C14   6T08C223904        (weld bay 16, bucked MAR 14)

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24541
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2012, 11:12:16 PM »
Quote from: bryancobb on October 01, 2012, 02:08:34 PM
Jeff,.......but would this also be true for my MAR 66 Metuchen car?

No different year, plant, answer
Logged
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline bryancobb

  • Silver Level Subscriber
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • 2009 Ridn' Around
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2012, 07:40:57 AM »
Quote from: J_Speegle on October 01, 2012, 11:12:16 PM
No different year, plant, answer

Perfect answer.  Thanks Jeff.  ;)
Logged
66 Metuch Conv
Nightmist, Std Blu Int
6T08C223904    76A       K         22       15c     21      6        6
                      BODY  COLOR   TRIM    DATE   DSO   AXLE  XMSN
   C/O  785                                   (rotation #)
   16    C14   6T08C223904        (weld bay 16, bucked MAR 14)

priceless

  • Guest
Re: 1967 Upper Control Arms - Dipped or Not Dipped?
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2012, 09:52:40 AM »
I'm going to give my opinion on this particular thread.

I honestly think that Bob Gaines remark to bryancobb was totally out of line.  We are on this forum to help,learn,and communicate about this great hobby we all share. We are also on here to preserve,restore, as true enthusiast/hobbyist, these wonderful cars we have grown to love over the past half century called the Mustang. And most/all of us wouldn't be on here if we didn't have the need for information no matter how,pardon my wording,stupid or dumb a reply may be.

And personally, I think there were nothing wrong with bryancobb asking about the 66 issue. And a reply should've been a simple yes or no, and to tell bryancobb that another thread may be started to cover that particular year in more detail for all to discuss. I'm sure bryancobb lashed out in the heat of the moment with his remark, that's only human nature.

I have made two(2) charitable donations to this forum in the past and plan on making other donations in the future because of its highly knowledgeable people here. And would like to see us all get along because of the need for this forum.

These are my opinions and may not set well with others, but, this is what I feel about this situation and felt compelled to respond.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 10:01:03 AM by priceless »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »