Topic: Tail light to body hardware

[Angela]

I've noticed that every hardware kit one can buy (including AMK) to attach the taillight buckets to the tail light panel (body) include 10-24 "keps" nuts with integrated washer "teeth".  For the longest time I figured that must be the correct style of nut used in this application. However, when installing the plastic wire protectors onto the 10-24 studs (after the keps nut) I noticed it seems like the stud is way too long or the wire protector cap is way too shallow. Looking back at my box of original taillight hardware, I noticed that the 10-24 nuts were not keps, but stamped machine-thread type with a form of mastic inside the nut. These stamped machine thread nuts are at least twice the depth of the keps nuts supplied with the AMK kit. When the stamped nuts are installed the wire protector plastic cap fits perfectly.

So, my question is whether thin keps nuts or the "taller" stamped machine thread nuts are correct.

This might be difficult to imagine without a picture. I'll try to grab a photo...

[J_Speegle]

Believe your doing a 67 San Jose car

If I understand you question its typical for the stud covers not to hide all the threads on the mounting shaft

Here are a few pictures that might (?) help - let me know if the answer is no and I try and find something

[67gta289]

Dragging this topic up.  I did search elsewhere and did not find the answer to this related question - how many of the 12 tail light screws (6 per side) had the gray plastic screw protector?

I have a picture of an unrestored 7F02C200xxx that shows the driver's side had them on all three top screws, and the inner most bottom screw.  The other two bottom screws did not have them.  I don't have a picture of the passenger side. 

[67gtasanjose]

Dragging this topic up.  I did search elsewhere and did not find the answer to this related question - how many of the 12 tail light screws (6 per side) had the gray plastic screw protector?

I have a picture of an unrestored 7F02C200xxx that shows the driver's side had them on all three top screws, and the inner most bottom screw.  The other two bottom screws did not have them.  I don't have a picture of the passenger side.

This seems to be the trend of what Ford intended for both sides (siting memory) I added them to all 6 of mine at one point (just because, I suppose) and they often get knocked off loading & unloading cargo so I MIGHT have 4 remaining now.

[ruppstang]

The four as shown in your picture is what I have found as correct. Others may have a different opinion.

[jwc66k]

When in doubt, use the book: 5 are indicated in the B/M (both 67 and 68, 353358-S), 2 on the RH upper inner studs, 2 on the LH upper inner studs, 1 on the LH lower inner stud. After a couple of decades of vehicle use, who knows how many were installed, how many fell off and were incorrectly replaced, how many fell off and were tossed, etc.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

Not meaning to be argumentative - just stating another opinion

Sure any long term member here sees examples, in out responses, how comfortable and how much value we each, individually place resource and reference.

When in doubt, use the book: 5 are indicated in the B/M (both 67 and 68, 353358-S), 2 on the RH upper inner studs, 2 on the LH upper inner studs, 1 on the LH lower inner stud. After a couple of decades of vehicle use, who knows how many were installed, how many fell off and were incorrectly replaced, how many fell off and were tossed, etc.

Agree allot can change over the years but there are enough mistakes, workers choose not to do it the way the "book" suggested, or they changed the "book" the following day  for me to accept many of the details there. In most of the really nice unrestored examples we find it appears that in the trunk, especially, there was little touched or altered or reason for it as in allot of cases the trunk and back seat were rarely if ever used.

If we see one (for example) not there that the "book" suggest should have been installed I think we have a responsibility to at least discuss the possibility that that plant and those two-three workers didn't install them for some reason

[jwc66k]

If we see one (for example) not there that the "book" suggest should have been installed I think we have a responsibility to at least discuss the possibility that that plant and those two-three workers didn't install them for some reason

Absolutely. However, a car is judged to a standard according to MCA. If a car being judge is missing a cap that requires one in the trunk, a competent judge will note that missing cap and deduct a point. The car owner will be upset. An argument will ensue. The car owner will cite pictures and opinions and precedents, but without documentation acceptable to the show sponsor, it is a losing argument. To be safe, knowing what I stated above happens, following the book is not a bad idea. Of course, it's only one point.
Jim

[Bob Gaines]

Absolutely. However, a car is judged to a standard according to MCA. If a car being judge is missing a cap that requires one in the trunk, a competent judge will note that missing cap and deduct a point. The car owner will be upset. An argument will ensue. The car owner will cite pictures and opinions and precedents, but without documentation acceptable to the show sponsor, it is a losing argument. To be safe, knowing what I stated above happens, following the book is not a bad idea. Of course, it's only one point.
Jim

I know what idea you are trying to get across but for others reading technically if any, only a percentage of a point (percentage of point value for that area) might be warranted.  MCA does not count partial points. The minor deduction may be added up along with other minor deductions from that same category and possibly be given the weight of "a" point when taken into consideration along with the other less then one point deductions. There is typically a "catch all" area for items mentioned but not deducted for in the category being scored. That way, less then 1 point valued items are not ignored or given more weight then they deserve. Also if the combined minor deductions still don't have the combined weight of one point then the deduction is dismissed although the information is still on the sheets for owners to consider. I only mention it so others don't get the wrong idea that every incorrect item is at least 1 point deduction. 

[mtinkham]

I did a few searches for leaking tail lights (taillights, taillights) and did not find anything.  I am putting together a 67 coupe (final stages of a restoration....yeah) and wanted to try to prevent leaks into the taillight assemblies.

Any suggestions for preventive measures would be appreciated.

Thanks
Mark

[jwc66k]

I did a few searches for leaking tail lights (taillights, taillights) and did not find anything.  I am putting together a 67 coupe (final stages of a restoration....yeah) and wanted to try to prevent leaks into the taillight assemblies.

Mark,
Do you have leak a problem now, say from body damage? If not, I would use the replacements available.
Jim

[mtinkham]

Jim,

Taillight assemblies were leaking prior to the restoration.  Going back together now, with all original Ford components.  I didn't know if I should double-up on the lens-to-bucket seal, which would push the thick body seal further out of the bucket assembly.  Wasn't sure if I should add some sealer between the thick body seal and the body?

Just looking for any proactive steps I can take to prevent leaking.

Thanks.
Mark

[J_Speegle]

Jim,

Taillight assemblies were leaking prior to the restoration.  Going back together now, with all original Ford components.  I didn't know if I should double-up on the lens-to-bucket seal, which would push the thick body seal further out of the bucket assembly.  Wasn't sure if I should add some sealer between the thick body seal and the body?

Just looking for any proactive steps I can take to prevent leaking.

Might want to consider some non-factory methods to insure a positive seal in a hidden area of your car.

[mtinkham]

Might want to consider some non-factory methods to insure a positive seal in a hidden area of your car.

Thanks Jeff.  That is what I was seeking from the experts on this forum...any suggestions or proven methods? Again, I did a search for sealing / leaking tail lights and nothing came up.

Thanks in advance.

[67gta289]

Just a thought (have done in other cases but not this) is to use a clear dielectric compound to fill in any gaps.  It does not harden, can be removed, and is water proof.  In this application where there is the potential for water seepage but no direct stream with pressure, it probably would work great.