SAAC Forum
SAAC HQ => Concours Talk => Topic started by: Kent on September 20, 2022, 02:46:19 AM
-
Does somebody here has some pictures of the correct taillight lenses. I have 6 or 7 sets from what appears to be original nos, the ones in my shelby which also appear correct and some reproductions with FoMoCo logo and numbers. How can I exactly tell which ones are original and which not? Are they really so close in finish and numbers or is there something I´m missing how to divide them?
-
Shouldn't they resemble the Cougar taillights, but not have the clear end-caps for the license plate? I do not have the part number if it is a special mold for the Shelby's.
If they are the Cougar items, then a 1967 Ford/Cougar part number - C7WY-13450
-
They do have the clear portion to illuminate the license plate even though it's not there.
Wide Black tape (like used to hold the fuel sending unit wire in the trunk) was put over the hole where the light unit for the (Cougar) plate was now not needed.
Added image, the yellow arrow is pointing to the tape that is falling off.
-
Here is some photo's: NOS Assy S7MS-13404-A
I matched the lenses perfectly to the Cougar C7WY-13450-B.
-
More Photo's: I did check the 67 Cougar housing is also a exact match to the 67 Shelby.
-
More Photo's: I did check the 67 Cougar housing is also a exact match to the 67 Shelby.
The plug with the red wire was not used on a 67 Shelby. They typically had the green wire . The plugs with green wires were used on both sides.
-
Service replacement? I have a pair Dated 12-12-73
-
Service replacement? I have a pair Dated 12-12-73
Possibly a service part or PO repair using a piece cut from Cougar harness. The one in the picture has a D3 engineering number that indicates at least a 1973 part. Over the counter service replacements parts are many times found to be different then assemblyline.
-
I mean the glass sorry maybe I was wrong with my English, but also the housing is interesting. Maybe its good to talk about the whole unit. Was there a change beside the bezel frame which changed in the later production also for housing, glass etc. Thanks.
-
Service replacement? I have a pair Dated 12-12-73
Notice that the wire tag id number reflects a 73 part/engineering number in your picture posted.
Service part/replacement = A part made for Ford by them or a subcontracting company, to sell as a replacement for an original part. Not always designed to look exactly like the original but would serve as a replacement and operate correctly in the intended application
-
I mean the glass sorry maybe I was wrong with my English, but also the housing is interesting. Maybe its good to talk about the whole unit. Was there a change beside the bezel frame which changed in the later production also for housing, glass etc. Thanks.
No glass and not a problem because I know you must mean plastic lens. The bezel frame remained the same throughout production.
-
but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?
Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?
-
but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?
Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?
Sorry ,to clarify the die cast housing that holds the bulbs ,plastic lens and the bezel or trim that surrounds the lens was the same throughout production. The cast aluminum bezel trim had studs to hold the lens on early production and was solid in appearance on the outside . The later production of the same part evolved to use long thin Philips head machine screws that went through holes made into the bezel trim which is seen from the outside.
-
Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?
From the outside the repro plastic lens looks identical to the original . When you turn the lens over and look at the backside you can tell that the lens is made noticeably thicker when compared to a original. Originals had a tendency to develop age cracks seen on the outside surface of the lens over time. By making the lens thicker in that area lessons the chance of that problem happening. It is one of the few examples where the repro part is made better yet look assemblyline correct from the outside compared to the original part.
-
but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?
Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?
Yes, there were two versions of the cast aluminum trim bezels, early had smooth outer surface and later had the visible stud ends.
-
Thank you, JD. The photos that you posted here offer a perfect explanation. Nice job! Denny
-
Ok thanks Bob and JD and all the others. I think so we have talked about this part. Just to clarify the housing is from the 67 cougar and there were no changes on these beside the cable colour.
Bob is a reproduction ok for concourse and is it visible for a judge when they are mounted on the car if they are original or concours repro, if yes how can they differentiate this?
I just want to know this because I like to see what is original from 67 and what not.
-
Not Bob, but Division II Concours does allow for reproduction parts. I'm sure Bob will comment...
-
Ok thanks Bob and JD and all the others. I think so we have talked about this part. Just to clarify the housing is from the 67 cougar and there were no changes on these beside the cable colour.
Bob is a reproduction ok for concourse and is it visible for a judge when they are mounted on the car if they are original or concours repro, if yes how can they differentiate this?
I just want to know this because I like to see what is original from 67 and what not.
Different concours class's allow different things. SAAC Div II /MCA trailered concours allows reproduction parts as long as they are well made faithful versions compared to the assemblyline original. There are reproduction parts out there that are better then others . Some examples are Repro Battery cables with stickers instead of the engineering numbers printed on cable like original ,repro voltage regulators with the wrong base compared to original. Repro hypo air cleaner lids with the wrong pressed in contours etc. There are excellent repo versions of those same items. It is impossible to be current on the ever changing list the good ones vs the bad ones but places like this where judges participate can give a better idea when posed the question. In the case of the excellent repro lens you can use it without worry of a deduction . It becomes a difference of over all condition with the lens when trying to determine to use the repo lens vs. using a original IMO. Yes once installed there is a slight difference in thickness on the repro that is discernable but besides that nuance aspect only being applicable to DIV I or MCA Throughbred concours class it is so minor that it can easily be overlooked. The wired plug on the other hand has the wrong color wire . It needs to be changed or risk deductions .
-
Thank you, this helped me. So I just have to measure them when they are on the table. I really have some of these but its really tough to divide between original and repro. Thank you all.
-
Just to be clear the thickness is in the plastic of the face portion . The physically outside dimensions are identical.
-
Might also compare how red or tint of each against one another as different batches and runs of the lens can differ and really stand out in certain light conditions. Especially on service replacements. Don't want to discover this on the show field the day of a show. ;)
-
yes I have a definite original set here and believe me its so hard to see a difference in the red compared to the new good ones. Ok maybe the repro is really very close and good. Normally there is just one option to 100% find out what is original and what repro. I will try it and make an update here. I just had an idea.