was sent a pair of leaf springs to detail. the have square hole clamps holding them together - look like they have never been apart. Ive never seen any real ones except round hold clamps . Im posting a pic of the stamped number on the small leaf. does anyone else have original 67 springs with square hole clamps?
Like this ?
Jim
I have seen square holed ones on 65-70 cars, although the round holes I find are the most predominate ones on he 65-67 years. I have a set of springs from a 66 car in my shop now, one has round hole bands the other has square holes.
Rodney
Quote from: KR500 on May 16, 2020, 05:48:40 PM
Jim
I have seen square holed ones on 65-70 cars, although the round holes I find are the most predominate ones on he 65-67 years. I have a set of springs from a 66 car in my shop now, one has round hole bands the other has square holes.
Rodney
+1 I'm using these springs on a roller chassis. They have square hole clamps.
Quote from: acman63 on May 16, 2020, 01:56:07 PM
was sent a pair of leaf springs to detail. The have square hole clamps holding them together - look like they have never been apart. Ive never seen any real ones except round hold clamps . Im posting a pic of the stamped number on the small leaf. does anyone else have original 67 springs with square hole clamps?
I have seen the square hole in use on 67 before but the round hole is on the vast majority that I have studied. I figured it was a supplier thing.
Jim if you notice that your examples is stamps length wise rather than across as most -AM and-AR that were supplied to San Jose were that is likely the clue as to why the different clamps. Some of the others offered in the thread so far are examples typically found on eastern supplied sources to the factory based on what I've collected as far as data points.
You can find different clamps at the same plant and year, just different application/numbering so they have to be looked at independently IMHO
Car 2226.
Here are a couple more examples off early '67's, to Jeff's point note the orientation of the stampings - across, not in-line - and the '66 date codes...
The one set is the 252 day of 1966 the other is the 327th day of 1966
The raised stamping pad in the third picture is interesting
^^ sorry, that is a marker circle that was done by the owner to call-out the date code not a raised area.
Mine are square, #03074.
Quote from: JD on May 19, 2020, 11:46:31 AM
^^ sorry, that is a marker circle that was done by the owner to call-out the date code not a raised area.
Obstacle illusion. ;D
#1512 Square. Mar 22 Ford build.
Brian
What is the Ford build date of the car onto which these springs go?
I would suspect spring Julian dates to be close (1-2 mo prior?) to the Ford build date.
Here is what my 67's spring code looks like and it has the round square hole clamps.
It would be interesting to make a Jeff S. style chart and see what the trend was on the clamps.
On edit => it took many hours, but I finally found the original clamps. Strike two on this post since not only did I grab the wrong color paint for the leaf spring, but the hole is actually square.
Quote from: Bossbill on May 22, 2020, 08:05:14 PM
What is the Ford build date of the car onto which these springs go?
I would suspect spring Julian dates to be close (1-2 mo prior?) to the Ford build date.
Here is what my 67's spring code looks like and it has the round end clamps.
It would be interesting to make a Jeff S. style chart and see what the trend was on the clamps.
Feb 09 1967 is what the Julian date code stands for. FYI the AR leaf spring would have a orange ID paint mark and not a yellow one. at least yellow is what it looks like on my monitor.round is most typical the square style I have seen but rarely on the SJ cars in 67.
Have typically found on 67 San Jose car the -AR to be a lighter color and the -AM a stronger orange
To illustrate here are three C7ZA-AR
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235136.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235107.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235122.jpeg)
And a couple of C7ZA-AM
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235038.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235052.jpeg)
Have more of course
Quote from: J_Speegle on May 22, 2020, 11:53:49 PM
Have typically found on 67 San Jose car the -AR to be a lighter color and the -AM a stronger orange
To illustrate here are three C7ZA-AR
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235136.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235107.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235122.jpeg)
And a couple of C7ZA-AM
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235038.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-220520235052.jpeg)
Have more of course
Orange it is ;)
Just don't always look orange ::) Think same question has come up many times over the years on the forums and we haven't always agreed but that's ok ;) And we continue on :)
I think I need to orange mine up a bit more.
I went back and looked at my original color and it has more orange than at present.
Was going to say that the original markings you found were more orange but figured it might just be the digit camera and or lighting :)
These are off 67 GT350 #2246, 5/1/67 Ford date, no ac no thermactor. Square hole straps.
-Would AS also be a legitimate manufacturer?
-I must be confused on how the date code works. C7ZX part number, but E03? Can't be '63 year? Service parts made in 2003?
Before I reuse the small leaf, would these be legit springs for a 67 GT350?
Quote from: T-Bone68 on May 31, 2020, 10:29:54 PM
These are off 67 GT350 #2246, 5/1/67 Ford date, no ac no thermactor. Square hole straps.
-Would AS also be a legitimate manufacturer?
-I must be confused on how the date code works. C7ZX part number, but E03? Can't be '63 year? Service parts made in 2003?
- As would be the version or last part of the engineering number of the spring and in term the last part of the identifying number
Your date code is "340" December 5th
E03 identifies the supplier/sub contractor who made the spring assemble. "03" may identify the plant number or something else. Have not put together all the examples I have or posted a study to determine it's meaning.
Stamping you show does not match the newer service replacements I've seen and more likely IMHO they are possibly the originals.
As far as a C7ZA-AS I don't have another example using that spring maybe someone else has. Did find it being used on a May 67 390 fastback with Auto and PS. Don't know if it was an A/C car also
Quote from: T-Bone68 on May 31, 2020, 10:29:54 PM
These are off 67 GT350 #2246, 5/1/67 Ford date, no ac no thermactor. Square hole straps.
-Would AS also be a legitimate manufacturer?
-I must be confused on how the date code works. C7ZX part number, but E03? Can't be '63 year? Service parts made in 2003?
Before I reuse the small leaf, would these be legit springs for a 67 GT350?
Jeff indicated that "AS" in the context of the discussion is not a MFG but the suffix of the spring engineering number . "AS" was not typically used on Competition Suspension option applications. FYI all 67 Shelby's had the Competition Suspension option as standard equipment. AM and AR are the suffix that identifies the Competition suspension option springs used on 67 Shelby's. The "E" in the E03 is that the indicate Eaton. Eaton was a large Multi National corporation that among other things supplied leaf springs to Ford in 1967. 03 could stand for plant Identification.If you have C7ZA-AS springs on your car the most likely reason is that they replaced the original equipment for some reason by a PO . A mistake at the assembly plant seems very unlikely.
Thank you very much Jeff and Bob for your thorough answers! Sounds like they were unsurprisingly swapped out with something different at some point. I guess I'm on the hunt now for an old spring, or just the small leaf, of a correct one.
John