Topic: Vacuum Canister Question

[travnemi]

roddster, was yours like i have in the picture? Was it mounted with short screws?

Thanks

[ruppstang]

I never have seen one mounted there. Do the mounting studs go through the firewall? If so it would be really difficult to service.
Marty

[roddster]

  No, because my car has factory A/c.  the heater contol valve sits there about where the non-A/C heater motor would be.

[travnemi]

The canister was screwed into the firewall right above the heater motor.

Travis

[roddster]

  Marty, if the question was for me.
   No, mounted on the right inner fender panel.  Rearward of the shock/spring tower, forward of the cowl.  Mounting nuts were accessed though the inner fender panel.  The wheel house area.
  I'm sure any changes were because of the limited access to the hood hinge bolts, this will be a PIA when the car goes back together.

[roddster]

  There is a 67 GTA convertible with the same reservoir style my car has with a great photo.  Listed as a 1967 Red GTA convertible on Ebay.  There is one photo of the canister.  The shot is taken from the battery corner, shot toward the master cylinder.  The view of the reservoir is very clear just inside and low to the right hood hinge.
  In case the listing ends, the posters name is "rosnermotorsports"  and the car dealer is: Rosner Volvo of Fredericksburg

[Bob Gaines]

  There is a 67 GTA convertible with the same reservoir style my car has with a great photo.  Listed as a 1967 Red GTA convertible on Ebay.  There is one photo of the canister.  The shot is taken from the battery corner, shot toward the master cylinder.  The view of the reservoir is very clear just inside and low to the right hood hinge.
  In case the listing ends, the posters name is "rosnermotorsports"  and the car dealer is: Rosner Volvo of Fredericksburg

That is the typical early 67 style A/C vacuum can in it's typical mounting position. It evolved to a smaller coffee can style mounted on the wheel well side of the apron.

[ruppstang]

  Marty, if the question was for me.
   No, mounted on the right inner fender panel.  Rearward of the shock/spring tower, forward of the cowl.  Mounting nuts were accessed though the inner fender panel.  The wheel house area.
  I'm sure any changes were because of the limited access to the hood hinge bolts, this will be a PIA when the car goes back together.

Sorry about that it was to Travnemi in post #28. You posted before I could post mine. I hunt and peck slowly.

This has become a long thread but if you read through there are pictures of most of the canisters and their mounting.

[drummingrocks]

This has become a long thread but if you read through there are pictures of most of the canisters and their mounting.

Here's another thread where we've been discussing the various designs and locations of '67 vacuum canisters: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=5644.0

[67gtasanjose]

  There is a 67 GTA convertible with the same reservoir style my car has with a great photo.  Listed as a 1967 Red GTA convertible on Ebay.  There is one photo of the canister.  The shot is taken from the battery corner, shot toward the master cylinder.  The view of the reservoir is very clear just inside and low to the right hood hinge.
  In case the listing ends, the posters name is "rosnermotorsports"  and the car dealer is: Rosner Volvo of Fredericksburg

The eBay RED example (showing only a few signs or repair/restoration work) has these details to contribute:
(by all means, point out anything else that contributes to a better understanding of the canister and/or tilt option)

* Built in San Jose, consecutive #153632 (NOTE: vin stamp has "issues" in the apron shot)
* S-code
* A/C
* (amended) Has Tilt-away column (w/o Marti Report confirmation)
* No evidence of Thermactor
* Oblong Vacuum Canister, typical hinge mounted location (early/mid design)
* No evidence of (amended) any hoses that lead to an Under Battery Canister
* Typical signs of a circa Jan. '67 built SJ example using underhood items (hood and washer bottle) and notice the 2nd design Convenience Control Option lenses on the console (more input can narrow down the likely production date)

Just observations at this point to contribute to build data. If we could pin (or narrow) a production date, that could help out some

Richard

[jwc66k]

* Built in San Jose, consecutive #153632 (NOTE: vin stamp has "issues" in the apron shot)
If we could pin (or narrow) a production date, that could help out some
Richard

Per vol 2 of the Mustang Production Guide the build date is "around" Dec 14, 1967.
Jim

[Bob Gaines]

The eBay RED example (showing only a few signs or repair/restoration work) has these details to contribute:
(by all means, point out anything else that contributes to a better understanding of the canister and/or tilt option)

* Built in San Jose, consecutive #153632 (NOTE: vin stamp has "issues" in the apron shot)
* S-code
* A/C
* No evidence of Thermactor
* Oblong Vacuum Canister, typical hinge mounted location (early/mid design)
* No evidence of an Under Battery Canister
* Typical signs of a cica Jan. '67 built SJ example using underhood items (hood and washer bottle) and notice the 2nd design Convenience Control Option lenses on the console (more input can narrow down the likely production date)

Just observations at this point to contribute to build data. If we could pin (or narrow) a production date, that could help out some

Richard

Richard ,since the battery tray location for a vacuum can does not show up in the vast majority of pictures of even cars that have them because of the low ,dark location the fact that it is not seen is of no weight in regards to the discussion of evidence one way or the other. Just thought that point should be taken into consideration.

[67gtasanjose]

Richard ,since the battery tray location for a vacuum can does not show up in the vast majority of pictures of even cars that have them because of the low ,dark location the fact that it is not seen is of no weight in regards to the discussion of evidence one way or the other. Just thought that point should be taken into consideration.

You are correct Bob, you cannot see the canister and you cannot see any hoses leading towards the area the canister woul be. I will amend my message to reflect that information. Thanks

I also amended and added the tilt-away option shown on the car as non-confirmed by a Marti Report.

Richard

[67gtasanjose]

Per vol 2 of the Mustang Production Guide the build date is "around" Dec 14, 1967.
Jim

Jim, I believe you meant Dec 14 1966, not '67

[Bob Gaines]

The eBay RED example (showing only a few signs or repair/restoration work) has these details to contribute:
(by all means, point out anything else that contributes to a better understanding of the canister and/or tilt option)

* Built in San Jose, consecutive #153632 (NOTE: vin stamp has "issues" in the apron shot)
* S-code
* A/C
* No evidence of Thermactor
* Oblong Vacuum Canister, typical hinge mounted location (early/mid design)
* No evidence of an Under Battery Canister
* Typical signs of a cica Jan. '67 built SJ example using underhood items (hood and washer bottle) and notice the 2nd design Convenience Control Option lenses on the console (more input can narrow down the likely production date)

Just observations at this point to contribute to build data. If we could pin (or narrow) a production date, that could help out some

Richard

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Mustang-GTA-Power-Convertible-GTA-390-Cubic-Inch-V8-Automatic-Deluxe-Interior-Chrome-wheels-/231366297235  . Richard , If we are talking about the same car I am seeing different things . Please do not take this in a confrontational way because it is not meant to be but this car has been completely restored showing many signs of non original details mostly under the hood . The car is very nice but the interior dash has been restored /replaced all new upholstery ,carpets, weatherstrip etc. that can be seen from the limited view of the pictures provided. These are all normal things to replace but noticeably different if you know what to look for. The engine compartment has so many incorrect assemblyline details that it is easier to point out the correct ones then the incorrect ones. My point? It is hardly any kind of original yardstick to use as a basis for a correctly restored 67 engine compartment let alone a obscure detail as is being discussed and only should be used to illustrate a original detail along with a restore car caveat in the most general terms IMO.