Topic: Wiper Bezel - Were they found on a July '65 Dearborn?

[CharlesTurner]

Is this a, or the, deciding factor?
Jim

Are you asking if the visibility group had anything to do with the wiper bezels?  If so, the answer would be a definite no.

Also, keep in mind, as we have noted many times, the date on the warranty plate is just a projected build date.  Your car may have been built, days or weeks before or after that date.

[jwc66k]

Also, keep in mind, as we have noted many times, the date on the warranty plate is just a projected build date.  Your car may have been built, days or weeks before or after that date.

Doing a rough statistical analysis of VINs vs dates derived from the Mustang Production Guide, from the scheduled build date of 11S (May 11, 1965, a Tuesday) going back a week (2921 VINs listed including other car lines) and then forward a week (2706 VINs Listed), there were no deviations of build dates more than two days from the VINs. The car has nothing unusual from the mix of cars either. It is a Fastback GT with an automatic transmission: no A/C, no power brakes, no special anything that might cause a delay. There was no strike or holiday in that time frame to affect production. Kids were still in school so vacations were not a problem either, a production line in a state of tranquility. In that two week period there were 60 Mustangs listed: (27 had incomplete data entry) 12 GTs; 1 GT350; 5 "A" codes non-GT; 10 Fastbacks; 10 convertibles; 40 hardtops; 11 deluxe interiors; 2 special paint orders; nothing out of the ordinary. Based on that imperfect look, I would say that the car was built on the 10th, 11th of 12th of May, days not weeks off schedule.
Jim 

[J_Speegle]

Are you asking if the visibility group had anything to do with the wiper bezels?  If so, the answer would be a definite no.

Also, keep in mind, as we have noted many times, the date on the warranty plate is just a projected build date.  Your car may have been built, days or weeks before or after that date.

+1

[CharlesTurner]

I would say that the car was built on the 10th, 11th of 12th of May, days not weeks off schedule.
Jim

Believe whatever you want, but I've seen a lot of '67 and later Marti-reports and it is more uncommon than common to see a car actually made the day it was projected to be built.  And yes, there are instances of the difference being a week or more.

I have no proof that your car was made on the projected date and you have no proof that it was... so pure speculation as far as I'm concerned.  Not calling anyone out, that's just the way it is without real documentation.

[J_Speegle]

Jim we have a group (consecutive rotation numbered) buildsheets from part of a day that was discovered in a car. Thing there are about two dozen cars in the group. From the buildsheets the VIN's were different by as much as 4,000 numbers and projected build date differences of up to 3 weeks. IMHO this is currently ( and prior to Fords documents being released) the best example of what was possible. Widest difference I've seen between projected date on the door tag and real date was 8 months due to and option that was not available (approved) between the time the car was ordered and when it finally became available - patience buyer

Guess we could go through all the hundreds of Marti reports and compare dates - but that's allot of work just to get the average, max and minimum difference between projected and real date

[mgmradio]

Jim, my 10,000 mile convertible was special ordered on April 28th 1965. The proposed build date on the door tag is May 13th. The actual build date was probably around June 20th ( the latest date coded part I have found on the car is June 17th ) . My June 65 coupe is a June build date car the 16th I think , and the latest date code on it is June 14. Both cars built within days of each other and 30,000 vin #s between them. Both are unrestored with original door tags. The only cars you can definitely tell actual build dats on ar ones with original battery test stickers like my Aug 64 coupe
   Mike

[NEFaurora]

My June 24th, 1965 Dearborn convertible has no bezels.  It's just like my '66 Vert's wiper attachments.

Tony K.

[CharlesTurner]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the VIN's (consecutive number) were assigned at the same time the scheduled build date was assigned so those two numbers are not going to be a good measure of actual difference of when the car rolled off the production line.

If your car has the original hood hinges check the date codes on them What do they read!?

Yes, that's my understanding.  When the order was received at the assembly plant, a VIN was assigned and projected assembly date based on scheduling and availability of parts.  I'm guessing most of the common color cars with low options would be built relatively close to the projected date.

Not sure that hood hinges are a reliable date code as they are just one of many dated parts shipped in bulk to the assembly plant.  A thorough study of date codes found throughout a particular car might help narrow down the actual build date, but it's just about impossible to say absolutely sure which day a 65-66 was assembled.  Maybe Ford documentation will come to light eventually.

[jwc66k]

The general gist of what this thread has devolved to is that the Ford Motor Company was in a constant state of chaos (that's for another forum). The simple matter is that Ford Motor was in the business of building and selling cars (mostly), and selling cars to customers that may or may not have been upset with a delivery slippage (that topic too, is for another forum). We get examples of actual vs scheduled build dates from available data, mostly from 1967 and forward cars, from "clues" marked on 1966 and earlier cars (a remaining battery test stamp date has to be the best so far), permanently stamped dates on metal is another (both hood hinges on my 65 are late April for a May build), but without a build sheet or data base, no one really knows for sure. Ford made about 2 1/2 million Fords in 1965, add another million Lincolns and Mercurys, plus another million trucks and that gets real close to five million units. If one percent got a delay (read schedule deviation) that would be 50,000 units. That would attract management's attention (ask me how I know). If 5 percent of the scheduled units fell behind that comes out to a quarter million units. No company could survive that (Ford closed at $14.11 Friday). We get the "may have", "could have" or another phrase about differences between scheduled (door data tag date) vs actual build dates of days and weeks portrayed as the norm. There are some in the months range as well. They exist, I do not doubt or dispute those dates. My point: more cars were built within a two day period of their scheduled build date than not. How many remains to be seen. Using 1967 data to make that determination might reveal an interesting "Bell Curve".
Jim 

[J_Speegle]

................ Using 1967 data to make that determination might reveal an interesting "Bell Curve".

Took a look at the 67 Marti's I have copies of currently and found the following, but agree that a bell curve would represent the differences better than averages since an early and a lat would simple cancel each other out. But still interesting to see. The average I found in the sampling was just a little more than 8 days between the projected build date and the actual one. The number of vehicles completed within a two day period to their projected build date was less than 9% and the longest in this sampling was 32 days off


Though for me, 68 would give a better average (more data available) but for 67 with the copies I have

Will look more into the data and find some time to do the 68s since I would guess I have maybe 8 times the number of Martis' for that year.

Jut sharing

[CharlesTurner]

Though for me, 68 would give a better average (more data available) but for 67 with the copies I have

Will look more into the data and find some time to do the 68s since I would guess I have maybe 8 times the number of Martis' for that year.

Just be careful and discard data from around the UAW strike period!    

[Paperback Writer]

Just be careful and discard data from around the UAW strike period!    

Funny - I was think the exact same thing about '68 production and the UAW strike!

I have copies of several dozen Marti Reports from 1967 (though not enough for a truly "scientific sampling").  The rows shown in orange are late, the ones in green are early, and the ones in white are right on time - looks like the guys at Metuchen already had the "just-in-time" production process in place back in the 1960's.

BTW - It should probably be noted that even these numbers can be skewed just by the types of cars that I've found Marti Reports for.  Eagle-eyed members of the Forum will quickly notice that the cars on this list tend to be predominantly high-performance (and highly optioned cars) - which may have been more prone to production delays than your run-of-the-mill 289-2V or six-cylinder coupe...

[J_Speegle]

Think we'll split and move the discussion so we can continue the line of discussion Still collecting information through 71 from my files .

[David65coupe]

My 65 Coupe 07C732371  scheduled build date 18 May does not have bezels

[65 gt hipo]

It was a running change in late '65 model year production.  Believe the switch was around April/May '65.
My 26 th of may Dearborn , k code, no bezels.