Topic: Perches

[jwc66k]

As far as I know, 64 thru 68 spring perch bolts were not welded, they all had splines as retainers, both 3/8-16 and 3/8-24 bolts. The MPC indicates these bolt part numbers, 373134-S(2), 380042-S(2) and 381792-S2.
I have been told that the bushing was tack welded to the perch on the inside for all HP Mustangs including Shelby. That I have not seen or been able to verify.
Jim

[Anghelrestorations]

Yes, I agree its not typical to see the bolts welded to the spring perches.  But for this particular car we know these are the originals and these were welded....check one of my previous posts in this thread where you can see that before I took them apart.  Not common but I have no reason to believe its not original.  First set I have rebuilt like this. 

[Bob Gaines]

Yes, I agree its not typical to see the bolts welded to the spring perches.  But for this particular car we know these are the originals and these were welded....check one of my previous posts in this thread where you can see that before I took them apart.  Not common but I have no reason to believe its not original.  First set I have rebuilt like this.

I was looking through my parts and found enough of the welded type to change my point of view.  I believe they are a seldom seen (relatively speaking) Mustang factory variety that was only used very early in production . Unfortunately I do not know which plant my samples came from. I also believe that the more common type and the welded type were being used simultaneously until the welded type was phased out sometime during early 65 production.

[Anghelrestorations]

Makes sense as this is for a 64 1/2 K code convertible.  I also think it was unusual...

[CharlesTurner]

Also consider it could have been a dealer fix.  Hard to say for sure if it was a factory practice or not.

[Bob Gaines]

Also consider it could have been a dealer fix.  Hard to say for sure if it was a factory practice or not.

I am not sure what everyone else found but all of the bolts that I found with weld reminents had the splines but all were plain head with no makers mark.

[Anghelrestorations]

Im thinking it could be a vendor difference since not all of these spring perches were made by the same vendor.  I will nee3d to look if I can find a few more like that on the next trip to the junkyard. 

[FXguy]

Wonder if this was an early K code only practice...

[Maksim27]

I was wondering did all 1965-1966 perches have the M-S stamp or did some perches not have them.  I have early perches without the welds on the bushing and the bolts are RockFord.  The perches that I bought were painted black don't know from the previous owner or perhaps NOS but didn't have the M-S stamp.  No stamping of anything.  The RockFord bolts appear to be cad or zinc. 

I started removing the paint but can't find the M-S stamp.  I have dozens of varies 1965-1966  perches and all have M-S stamp.

[Maksim27]

This is the second perch which I haven't started removing the black paint...Not sure if the paint is from the last owner or NOS paint to keep the part from rusting.  I just never seen a early style perch being NOS, and only seen the 1967 versions being NOS.  So the black paint is questionable.  This black painted perch also doesn't seem to have the  M-S stamp.  Could the Perch possibly been a earlier style before the vendor used the M-S stamp or a later early production before the vendor started using welds for the shaft.   

As you can see the bolts look to be cad or zinc plated...  There is some remnants of yellow paint in the rubber.  The rubber has cracking on the edges but still is intact.

In the last picture I show my other early style OEM perch that has the M-S stamp.  I have dozens of M-S perches, but the recent perches that I bought without the M-S are the cleanest set.

Definitely confused as another possibility could be that not all perches got the M-S stamp just like other parts in the car.  Some did get stamps and others didn't as part of the assembly line process.     

[67gtasanjose]

Original ones were not painted though Service Parts often were. I believe you might have Service Replacements (or aftermarket).

[Bob Gaines]

Original ones were not painted though Service Parts often were. I believe you might have Service Replacements (or aftermarket).

+1 . One or the other .

[Maksim27]

Not aftermarket as aftermarket uses a 1967 style rubber shaft.  The 1965-1966 uses a rubber shaft just for those years.  Mine is the earlier style without the welds on the shaft.  I don't believe that aftermarket would have "RockFord" bolts and correct castle nuts. 

[Bob Gaines]

Not aftermarket as aftermarket uses a 1967 style rubber shaft.  The 1965-1966 uses a rubber shaft just for those years.  Mine is the earlier style without the welds on the shaft.  I don't believe that aftermarket would have "RockFord" bolts and correct castle nuts.

I would not be so quick to make a definitive call on if not aftermarket. You are assuming that there is no aftermarket perch versions made prior to the 67 style bushing change.   If a OEM mfg selling a after market version of what they supplied to Ford they would most likely use the same Rockford marked bolts. Hex nuts could have been re used when the perch was replaced for whatever reason. Replacement is assumed given the painted appearance and plated bolts vs. the accepted bare metal appearance that has been observed for decades by enthusiasts on dare I say thousands of survivor type Mustangs. A prior owner painting the perch would most likely not gone to the trouble of removing the bolts prior to painting. Of course it could be a rarely seen Ford anomaly. Typically when someone argues that "factory exception" point without definitive proof they just come off sounding like someone making up a story to justify a un expected /out of the ordinary item as original compared to what is expected as stock. Given the evidence or lack there of it is hard to say for sure if factory Ford or after market until more definitive proof IMO. It is not typically a deduction issue in concours unless in MCA thoroughbred class in which case a out of the ordinary thing like no trademark would need to be supported by back up documentation. If for your own piece of mind on your own car rather then trying to convince others of your point of view on a anomalous detail better to weigh the evidence and make a decision that makes the most sense for you IMO.   

[67gtasanjose]

Attached is a picture of my RESTORED, ORIGINAL early-67 Upper arm with the spring perch pivots attached. Early-67 seems to have used the "welded-in" perch bushing like you described that is typical for a 66 Mustang. It also has the Rockford Bolts and Castle-type nut you showed earlier.

My perches are both original yet the bushing kit and shaft are both aftermarket.

My reply supports a different possibility along the line of what Mr. Gaines is trying to say.

By the way Bob, nicely and kindly worded for future readers.
*I (personally) have failed Diplomacy 101 in real life but I knows it when I sees it!