Topic: spare tire hold down wing nut on ebay does it look OE.?

[CharlesTurner]

Agree with Scott on at least '68, found this pic of a low mileage unrestored.  Yes, the painted rim is correct for cars not ordered with wheel covers.

[CharlesTurner]

Unrestored '67 Shelby:

[CharlesTurner]

Bob Perkin's 50 mile '66 coupe, definitely shiny zinc plated:

[Richard P.]

From what I can see the shape of wing nut on Bob Perkinks car looks correct. It doesn't look like the wing nut on some Mustangs that I've judged. I do have some wing nuts that the color is slightly off but not shiny zinc or shaped like the one on the 1968 Mustang wheel shown. The 1968 Mustang wing nut looks like what being sold by parts vendors now. I purchased one earlier to see the difference.

[Bob Gaines]

Ford made two basic spare tire J-bolt  wing nuts.  One is 1/2-13 thread and one is 3/8-16 thread.  The one in the auction is the smaller thread variety which I believe is correct for 67 Shelby.  However, the original ones I have seen are clear/zilver zinc plated.  The one in the auction appears to be bare metal.  Bob Gaines was going to loan me an original 67 J-bolt a few years ago to copy, but I think he forgot. But, as I understand it, the original 67 Shelby spare tire J-bolt was a 3/8-16 thread.

Scott

It got away from me. It belonged to Mike Poston and his car is at the Boulder museum now. I am sure we can talk him into loaning it.

[CharlesTurner]

From what I can see the shape of wing nut on Bob Perkinks car looks correct. It doesn't look like the wing nut on some Mustangs that I've judged. I do have some wing nuts that the color is slightly off but not shiny zinc or shaped like the one on the 1968 Mustang wheel shown. The 1968 Mustang wing nut looks like what being sold by parts vendors now. I purchased one earlier to see the difference.

Richard: consider that the parts you're looking at are as much as 50 years old now.  Zinc plating will dull and break down over time depending on conditions.  I found a couple original wing nuts and they were dull silver, almost gray on the top, but flipped over, were silvery zinc plating on the bottom.  Skin oils from fingers taking the spare out can add to the breakdown of the finish.

Also, if you notice the trunk of B. Perkin's 50 mile '66, the trunk latch striker is bright zinc plating.  You've been deducting points for "too shiny" plating on concours cars, which I believe is too harsh.  Someone has taken the time to replicate the original finish by actually getting original parts re-plated and being dinged for it.  I'd rather see a part in the correct finish, even if it's off just a tad off instead of cast blast or 'faux' paint used, or even worse, blasted or wire wheeled with clear coat applied.

[Richard P.]

Why don't you post a picture of the wing nut that you put on the cars in question? We'll see the difference. I'm not the only judge taking points for items that are too bright. It kind of like the tie rod end issue.

[CharlesTurner]

Why don't you post a picture of the wing nut that you put on the cars in question? We'll see the difference. I'm not the only judge taking points for items that are too bright. It kind of like the tie rod end issue.

I'll have to see if I can find some pics of those cars.  The point is that there has been deductions for someone going the extra effort to do actual plating instead of faux paint.  How many cars have gotten by with painted trunk latch strikers?  It would be more appropriate to write a comment for shiny plating instead of taking points.

This really isn't like the tie rods.  That's a design difference, which I do lean towards your opinion on that.

Here's the '65 K T-bred that I did, Bob didn't deduct for the plating of trunk striker or wing nut on that car either time it was judged:

http://www.ct.early-mustang.com/charles/K_vert/9_6_10/9_6_10%20004.jpg

[Richard P.]

The wing nuts that were on the other two cars was more than a shiny issue. Post some good pictures of those. I will take points for incorrect parts if found. That's only fair to someone to goes out and find the correct parts. I know that a good friend of ours  was was dinged for truck latch to shiny and he corrected the issue and that's what should happen.

[CharlesTurner]

Sounds like a hard line is being taken here.  Hoped that the pics of unrestored cars would help provide a different viewpoint.

Have no problem making corrections when something is wrong.  Although, I would rather take a deduction for something I know I'm right on than get a point back.

I'd still like to know for sure what the design differences are in the wing nut, don't believe a good answer has been given yet.  It's one of those items I admit to not paying much attention to over the years.

[Richard P.]

Ive just looked at my 1965 F

[Richard P.]

Sorry about the above posting. I've just looked at my 1965 and 1966 Ford parts and accessories manuals. Both manuals list part # B9AZ-1462-A (nut spare wheel carrier) Wing 3/6-16 for 1965 and 1966. This is the same part # that's posted on the e-bay listing with a picture of the wing nut on the e-bay page. I'd suggest that you get a picture of the two that you did and compare with this picture. This information about the parts # can be found on page 5 of the January 1965 and Page 16 of the  January1966 manuals.

[J_Speegle]

With this detail maybe we need to consider that we're comparing items that after 50 years may appear duller than they might have been at the day of delivery to the first owner or to the dealer. In the case of the NOS service parts the conditions related to how they were handled and stored can play a big part on condition of plating  IMHO its very good possibility all of these things could be effecting what we're comparing


As for deducting for such a detail.  I would expect that allot of us would just note the observation, talk to the owner, listen to the the reasoning and offer a suggestion on how it could be corrected as need be. If, still believing that the amount of brightness of the plating was off might make a deduction the next time I saw it but would need to feel really comfortable with the deduction and the value of that deduction given all the other details and the amount of points in that section

[Scott Fuller]

It is not uncommon for Ford service parts to have different (or no) plating than original assembly line parts.  I am particularly familiar with exhaust.  Assembly line exhaust that was originally made with aluminized tubing, was serviced as bare steel.  Mufflers that were originally aluminized were serviced with a galvanized outer sheet.  Clamp on tips that originally had an aluminized pipe were serviced with a bare steel pipe.  Hangers were frequently serviced as painted parts where they were originally bare steel.

I'd be careful about assuming that any NOS service part be representative of the assembly line part.

Additionally, I have lots of experience with plating parts.  I have zinc plated tens-of-thousands of parts (but not as many as Ford).  When the vats are recently cleaned, zinc plated parts look almost chrome.  As the vat becomes contaminated, the plating becomes less brilliant.  I can't say I've ever seen a dull zinc finish but it can vary a bunch depending on the vat contamination.  It's a costly and time consuming process to clean the vats.  It isn't done unless absolutely necessary.  Just food for thought on zinc plating.

Scott

[Scott Fuller]

I'm not sure how well the photo illustrates my point but both J-bolts are zinc plated.  They are plated by the same plater at different times.

The J-bolt on the left is very shiny, and the J-bolt on the right is pretty dull (almost looks like cad plating).

I think it is reasonable to assume that Ford would have experienced this same variance.

Scott