I believe there was a thread about batteries BTC and seeing a $17,000 B9 battery on ebay lead to restarting this thread.
According to my Marti report I have both the Extra Cooling Package and Heavy Duty Battery option on my mid year 67 GT350.
Per previous discussions, this would net me a group 24 red cap battery and not the group 22 yellow cap battery.
We used to have a chart that described what cars and their options netted what battery the car received.
I'll kick it off with what I remember (uh, oh) and update it after the experts chime in with what they know and I'll correct it.
- Yr...Model......A/C...Smog....55A....Group....Caps.....Caution...Autolite
- 65...GT350.................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 66..GT350..................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 66..GT350.....X...........................24.........Red.......Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT350...................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT350......X...or..X....or....X.....24..........Red.......Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT500...................................24.........Yellow.....Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT500......X...or..X....or....X.....24..........Red.......Yellow....No Color
A group 24 has been re-popped but it is for 68-up and is available from various vendors.
Here is a pic of that battery:
(http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/Assets/ProductImages/eg781.jpg)
as sourced from Virginia Mustang.
This reproduction is service replacement version for '65-'67 and repro for '68 -'70 cars.
This should follow with a thread for the correct V/R for this battery/alternator combo.
[The above has been edited to include the updates below]
I believe I have some notes from Bob and perhaps others that detail the '67's battery a bit further;
The "Autolite" lettering was not painted red on the 1967 battery.
-GT350 no A/C received the 22F with yellow caps & yellow raised letter "caution" script
-GT500 no A/C received the 24F with yellow caps & yellow raised letter "caution" script
-GT350 w A/C (and / or Thermactor) received the 24F with red caps & yellow raised letter "caution" script
-GT500 w A/C (and / or Thermactor) received the 24F with red caps & yellow raised letter "caution" script
The above notes were only for the 1967 Shelby.
Edit; added (and / or Thermactor) with A/C equipped units
Quote from: Richstang on February 13, 2018, 08:45:47 PM
I believe I have some notes from Bob and perhaps others that detail the '67's battery a bit further;
The "Autolite" lettering was not painted red on the 1967 battery.
-GT350 no A/C received the 22F with yellow caps & raised letter yellow "caution" script
-GT500 no A/C received the 24F with yellow caps & raised letter yellow "caution" script
-GT350 w A/C received the 24F with red caps & raised letter yellow "caution" script
-GT500 w A/C received the 24F with red caps & raised letter yellow "caution" script
The above notes were only for the 1967 Shelby.
and or thermactor should be added to the GT350 and GT500 w A/C designation.
Quote from: Bossbill on February 13, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
I believe there was a thread about batteries BTC and seeing a $17,000 B9 battery on ebay lead to restarting this thread.
According to my Marti report I have both the Extra Cooling Package and Heavy Duty Battery option on my mid year 67 GT350.
Per previous discussions, this would net me a group 24 red cap battery and not the group 22 yellow cap battery.
We used to have a chart that described what cars and their options netted what battery the car received.
I'll kick it off with what I remember (uh, oh) and update it after the experts chime in with what they know and I'll correct it.
- 65 GT350.....................Group 22...yellow
- 66 GT350.....................Group 22...yellow
- 67 GT350.....................Group 22...yellow
- 67 GT350...w/a/c..........Group 24...red
- 67 GT350...w/H/D Bat...Group 24...red
- 67 GT500....................Group 24...red
Further, the group 24 has been repopped and is available from various vendors.
Here is a pic of that battery:
(http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/Assets/ProductImages/eg781.jpg) as soured from Virginia Mustang.
Is this battery concours correct for MCA given the above restrictions for the various cars?
This should follow with a thread for the correct V/R for this battery/alternator combo.
Besides the amendments to your list already mentioned the 66 GT350 with A/C would get the group 24 ...red . FYI the picture of the battery that has been reproduced is not assemblyline correct for 65,66,or 67 Mustang/Shelby. It is a reproduction of a 1968-70 assemblyline battery. The 65,66,and 67 battery has a different looking top.
Here are a couple images of the three sizes of (F22, F24, F27) batteries that Bob G posted on the old forum.
Note the AUTOLITE on the front surfaces, the hold-down ledges, or lack of, low on the ends, the colors of the caps and most importantly the molded-in CAUTION text (assembly line) vs the raised pad with the label for noting the date of purchase (Service replacement} version.
(Edit as per Bob G below) The current reproductions are service replacement version for '65-'67 and repro for '68 -'70 cars.
Quote from: JD on February 13, 2018, 08:54:36 PM
Here are a couple images of the three sizes of (F22, F24, F27) batteries that Bob G posted on the old forum.
Note the AUTOLITE on the front surfaces, the hold-down ledges, or lack of, low on the ends, the colors of the caps and most importantly the molded-in CAUTION text (assembly line) vs the raised pad with the label for noting the date of purchase (Service replacement} version.
The current reproductions are all service replacement versions.
Sort of a service replacement (wrong sticker for that) for 65-67 but assemblyline type for 68-70. It is a great reproduction (visually) for the 68-70 years cars.
Might want to change the following since its not correct. The group 24 has not been reproduced for 1967 Mustangs and Shelbys
And that subject was the source of a number of very long threads on the old site
Quote from: Bossbill on February 13, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
Further, the group 24 has been repopped and is available from various vendors.
Some pictures of originals
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/8/6-290817235000-8597268.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-090815164350.jpeg)
OK, I thought of this some three years back. And I had a few made up "battery Legal Mumbo Jumbo" plates made up. And all I got out of it is a bunch of "that will be points off" BS from a few of our forum experts. REALLY!
And still, this pops up from time to time. You want them. NOBODY makes the group 24 case and yes, there is a "topper" that has a decal that, in my opinion, is not even close.
So, let me start by making a list of who is interested in the legal Mumbo-Jumbo plate you can glue to the top of a battery, or the top of the topper, or anywhere else. PM me.
Price? I am not sure yet, but with postage likely about $35 to $40 each. And, if you have the time, I believe the letters can be removed from the mounting plate and glued on, eliminating the plate.
The folks who make these said they would rather not made them one at a time, so, this will be a one shot deal like what Nic did with those nose wiring guide he had printed for the 67 center high beams.
Quote from: roddster on February 26, 2018, 12:08:04 PM
OK, I thought of this some three years back. And I had a few made up "battery Legal Mumbo Jumbo" plates made up. And all I got out of it is a bunch of "that will be points off" BS from a few of our forum experts. REALLY!
And still, this pops up from time to time. You want them. NOBODY makes the group 24 case and yes, there is a "topper" that has a decal that, in my opinion, is not even close.
So, let me start by making a list of who is interested in the legal Mumbo-Jumbo plate you can glue to the top of a battery, or the top of the topper, or anywhere else. PM me.
Price? I am not sure yet, but with postage likely about $35 to $40 each. And, if you have the time, I believe the letters can be removed from the mounting plate and glued on, eliminating the plate.
The folks who make these said they would rather not made them one at a time, so, this will be a one shot deal like what Nic did with those nose wiring guide he had printed for the 67 center high beams.
Since we lost all of the history from the forum crash I suppose we will go over this AGAIN. roddster (AKA Rod) apparently you don't understand that wrong is still wrong regardless of half wrong or not. It might be considered the next best thing compared to the sticker but as far as a substantial difference it falls short IMO. I complemented you on your effort but the applique does not make the battery look any more correct other then having the correct wording compared to the sticker. Sorry you got frustrated /mad or what ever it was not my intention. I explained knowing your demeanor that it might bother you but thought that the truth and facts would better explain the reasons for my and others point of view then no explanation but still point deductions . The style of letters , the size of the letters ,the style of characters , the spacing, and the raised pad that you installed them on is all wrong compared to original . All you have to do is compare your picture to the picture of the original battery to see the difference. You made yours to fit the sticker pad but that is not how the original is . If you don't see it compare to the original battery picture. If you can't see all the differences when compare the two pictures then that is on you I can only explain so much. Your applique looks better then the 68 version sticker that comes on the repro battery now or on the topper that Virginia Mustang offers but it is still just as incorrect. Closer, but close is only good in horse shoes and hand grenades. If something like this is given a pass then there is no incentive for the after market to invest the considerable capital to make a correct looking reproduction. The next best thing is just that . The next best thing in this case is a matter of smaller degrees in the right direction.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 26, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
Quote from: roddster on February 26, 2018, 12:08:04 PM
OK, I thought of this some three years back. And I had a few made up "battery Legal Mumbo Jumbo" plates made up. And all I got out of it is a bunch of "that will be points off" BS from a few of our forum experts. REALLY!
And still, this pops up from time to time. You want them. NOBODY makes the group 24 case and yes, there is a "topper" that has a decal that, in my opinion, is not even close.
So, let me start by making a list of who is interested in the legal Mumbo-Jumbo plate you can glue to the top of a battery, or the top of the topper, or anywhere else. PM me.
Price? I am not sure yet, but with postage likely about $35 to $40 each. And, if you have the time, I believe the letters can be removed from the mounting plate and glued on, eliminating the plate.
The folks who make these said they would rather not made them one at a time, so, this will be a one shot deal like what Nic did with those nose wiring guide he had printed for the 67 center high beams.
Since we lost all of the history from the forum crash I suppose we will go over this AGAIN. roddster (AKA Rod) apparently you don't understand that wrong is still wrong regardless of half wrong or not. It might be considered the next best thing compared to the sticker but as far as a substantial difference it falls short IMO. I complemented you on your effort but the applique does not make the battery look any more correct other then having the correct wording compared to the sticker. Sorry you got frustrated /mad or what ever it was not my intention. I explained knowing your demeanor that it might bother you but thought that the truth and facts would better explain the reasons for my and others point of view then no explanation but still point deductions . The style of letters , the size of the letters ,the style of characters , the spacing, and the raised pad that you installed them on is all wrong compared to original . All you have to do is compare your picture to the picture of the original battery to see the difference. You made yours to fit the sticker pad but that is not how the original is . If you don't see it compare to the original battery picture. If you can't see all the differences when compare the two pictures then that is on you I can only explain so much. Your applique looks better then the 68 version sticker that comes on the repro battery now or on the topper that Virginia Mustang offers but it is still just as incorrect. Closer, but close is only good in horse shoes and hand grenades. If something like this is given a pass then there is no incentive for the after market to invest the considerable capital to make a correct looking reproduction. The next best thing is just that . The next best thing in this case is a matter of smaller degrees in the right direction.
FYI If you can't see the difference between what you did compared to the original then that is the REAL "BS" in all of this .
Sadlt Virginia Mustangs are out and they are on back order about 15 people deep. Any other suggestions where to buy one?
Quote from: sfm5s081 on February 26, 2018, 06:49:22 PM
Sadlt Virginia Mustangs are out and they are on back order about 15 people deep. Any other suggestions where to buy one?
Buy one what? Battery ,Battery topper? You left your question open ended. Consequently it is hard to answer.
What's really sad about this is that there obviously are people who care whether or not they have the correct battery for their car, yet the manufactures aren't willing to spend the money to make the appropriate molds. This was discussed ad nauseum on the old forum, but I still can't believe I can't buy a correct group 22F battery. There has got to be enough Mustang owners combined to justify the effort. Or perhaps with the advent of new technologies like 3d printing, a less traditional method could be employed?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 26, 2018, 08:12:45 PM
Quote from: sfm5s081 on February 26, 2018, 06:49:22 PM
Sadlt Virginia Mustangs are out and they are on back order about 15 people deep. Any other suggestions where to buy one?
Buy one what? Battery ,Battery topper? You left your question open ended. Consequently it is hard to answer.
I think he talking about batteries. Last I knew AAB was 8 to 12 weeks behind
Quote from: TLea on February 26, 2018, 09:31:53 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 26, 2018, 08:12:45 PM
Quote from: sfm5s081 on February 26, 2018, 06:49:22 PM
Sadlt Virginia Mustangs are out and they are on back order about 15 people deep. Any other suggestions where to buy one?
Buy one what? Battery ,Battery topper? You left your question open ended. Consequently it is hard to answer.
I think he talking about batteries. Last I knew AAB was 8 to 12 weeks behind
Last I heard from Brant Virginia hadn't been even been taking orders for some weeks so you can understand my confusion to hear the report that Virginia had said 15 people deep and associating that with the batteries.
Quote from: BGlover67 on February 26, 2018, 08:45:33 PM
What's really sad about this is that there obviously are people who care whether or not they have the correct battery for their car, yet the manufactures aren't willing to spend the money to make the appropriate molds. This was discussed ad nauseum on the old forum, but I still can't believe I can't buy a correct group 22F battery. There has got to be enough Mustang owners combined to justify the effort. Or perhaps with the advent of new technologies like 3d printing, a less traditional method could be employed?
Couldn't agree more! I wish someone would reproduce the correct battery. I believe Bob had mentioned getting close with one company, only to have them get skittish at the last minute...I could be wrong, though.
Quote from: Shelby_0022 on February 26, 2018, 10:26:53 PM
Quote from: BGlover67 on February 26, 2018, 08:45:33 PM
What's really sad about this is that there obviously are people who care whether or not they have the correct battery for their car, yet the manufactures aren't willing to spend the money to make the appropriate molds. This was discussed ad nauseum on the old forum, but I still can't believe I can't buy a correct group 22F battery. There has got to be enough Mustang owners combined to justify the effort. Or perhaps with the advent of new technologies like 3d printing, a less traditional method could be employed?
Couldn't agree more! I wish someone would reproduce the correct battery. I believe Bob had mentioned getting close with one company, only to have them get skittish at the last minute...I could be wrong, though.
Almost . It was I who got skittish when I heard all of the bad PR about Antique Battery customer service or lack of it in regards to no returned phone calls ,no returned emails , back orders with no communication etc. Could I expect any better with communication after sending my only 65-67 22 F assemblyline battery?
The repo batteries are crap. Mine lasted less than two years
Bob, I am not surprised by your reply. This is the something that is better than the nothing we have right now. I have no idea about your point is incrrect anything, as, I too took the rubbing off of the fellow who had the assembly line battery at the Springfield IL MCA national some years ago. And I took that rubbing to a sign maker.
Now, who was the "MCA official" who stated "We don't need the 65-67 correct battery" that still now we still don't have.
And, why can't it be an empty case you drop over a good battery. Thats right, seems the repop batteries do not last too long.
Anyway, I never said it was perfect, just closer to an original look.
Agreed. The repo batteries are expensive and do not last long. Mine only lasted LESS than 6 months. Got a nice battery and just added the topper.
Steve
Quote from: roddster on February 27, 2018, 10:05:55 AM
Bob, I am not surprised by your reply. This is the something that is better than the nothing we have right now. I have no idea about your point is incrrect anything, as, I too took the rubbing off of the fellow who had the assembly line battery at the Springfield IL MCA national some years ago. And I took that rubbing to a sign maker.
Now, who was the "MCA official" who stated "We don't need the 65-67 correct battery" that still now we still don't have.
And, why can't it be an empty case you drop over a good battery. Thats right, seems the repop batteries do not last too long.
Anyway, I never said it was perfect, just closer to an original look.
Rod, I don't doubt you took a rubbing. Again if you compare your applique to the original battery top in Jeff's post, they are completely different . I don't know if you really don't see the difference or are just frustrated that you can't get the detail right and are lashing out at me. The two images are by far not a mirror image. You must have taken that rubbing to your sign maker who reset the letters and characters . The letters and characters the sign maker used were from his stock and not the exact same size or design of the Ford ones in your rubbing. Printers think this is good enough . I have had to deal with this many times when asking to duplicate a stamp "exact" . Many times their idea of exact is not the same as a mirror image . Your solution is a little too far from perfect IMO. It IS a step in the right direction and I have ALWAYS given you credit for the effort. However it still is not comparable enough to give it a pass IMO. If something like that is good enough then there is no incentive for the after market to go to the extra time and expense to get it right. Remember when a exact exhaust system was not available ,remember when no one rebuilt buttontop fuel pumps. If the poor alternatives were given a pass then those vendors might not ever try to find a solution. I have tried to explain this many times now. If you can't see that then that is on you. It will not do any good to name the person at MCA that you are asking about. The person at MCA that messed up the deal with Scott Drake to do the batteries has retired . It will not help to call him out. The other alternative you mention of a empty case that would fit over a existing battery as long as the case looks correct. The problem I see is finding a existing battery that will fit in a 22F shorter case and also has enough CCA to work properly.
JD please do one of your great side by side of the assemblyline battery picture and Rods picture to try and help him see a difference between the two.
Bob, at a clients today, will see if I have the images and post later if I do.
JD
Maybe this will suffice in the meantime
Don't have the exact measurements of each to scale them so just scaled them to the tips of the arrows for comparison purposes roddster graphic is the top example
Appears that the original designer used justify to stretch the second row to the parameters
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-270218152507.jpeg)
OK, back at the office.
Jeff pretty much covered this above, but here is another similar comparison...
Quote from: JD on February 27, 2018, 04:28:47 PM
OK, back at the office.
Jeff pretty much covered this above, but here is another similar comparison...
Thanks to both you and Jeff. I measured a original . 5 1/4 x 1 1/2 measured from the edge of the yellow letters long ways and from the top edge of the first sentence of letters to the bottom edge of the last sentence letters. Rods measurements includes the space between the edges of the board/base it is made on so I can't figure what the measurements are in comparison to the assemblyline battery solely by his picture. Another measurement to consider is how thick the board/base is that the letters are made into. How much taller then the battery top surface will it be/look given the thickness? Will the bottom of the board/base be routed out to fit over the smaller diameter 1/16 raised pad the 68 sticker normally goes on ? If not the board/base will not fit flush to the battery surface. If you are going forward with this project I would make the image of the letters and characters (arrows ) match the original, the base sits flat on the battery surface top along with being as thin as practical.
Lets look at the photo of the mumbo-jumbo plate as mounted. One thing I have yet to do is sand off the backing plate to see how that will work. Probably better, but I just need some time.
Quote from: roddster on February 28, 2018, 01:55:27 PM
Lets look at the photo of the mumbo-jumbo plate as mounted. One thing I have yet to do is sand off the backing plate to see how that will work. Probably better, but I just need some time.
Thanks for posting - its very apparent that the one in the picture (the insert) is very different from the graphic you provided in reply #7
Guess the challenge now may be getting the battery itself to stick it to
Well, I know what the solution is. Take a mould off an original battery. And use that. Around here (the Chicago area rust belt) you'll more likely have a dinosaur walk down your driveway.
Those are long gone.
Having a slight problem with the place that made these the last time a couple of years back. We're not sure what either of us wants or can do. Might be a bust.
Quote from: roddster on February 28, 2018, 10:46:06 PM
Well, I know what the solution is. Take a mould off an original battery. And use that. Around here (the Chicago area rust belt) you'll more likely have a dinosaur walk down your driveway.
Those are long gone.
Having a slight problem with the place that made these the last time a couple of years back. We're not sure what either of us wants or can do. Might be a bust.
PM me to discuss ideas on how I can help to get this accomplished.
Digital files for making a mold probably exist...
3D printer.
What about just making the top lid & bonding it to the now existing repo 24f battery & working with the autolite repo battery company as that would be alot cheaper than making the whole battery over or is there many differences between 66-67 bottom & the 68 -71 bottom dont have a raised letter case here ANYMORE to compare the 2 bottom cases . When did the bottom case hold down ears end?
Quote from: Special Ed on March 01, 2018, 09:29:44 AM
What about just making the top lid & bonding it to the now existing repo 24f battery &...........
The challenge with this idea is that the added top would have to be very thin or the add on will look obvious IMHO
Thought about the whole 3D printing but it seems to be a half measure to the point where someone would come around, do it right (complete battery) then you out time, effort and $$'s you put into the project. A number of local libraries purchased 3D printers for the public to use just don't have the time to teach myself another skill.
I wasnt talking about an add-on lid I meant making the 66 battery top & bonding it to existing repo case as the top is separate from the case & after battery case is loaded then the top is bonded on just below the top outer lip.
The battery guys indicate a group 22 is around 250 CCA and 24 is 350 CCA.
This is well within range of the small AGM batteries.
I've run a very small "Big Crank" (house brand of the Deka Battery Co.) AGM battery in my race car and these things last for years. And, as indicated in this url, they are small enough to fit in the old cases:
https://www.batterymart.com/c-big-crank-batteries.html
Their 400 CCA battery appears to fit into a group 24 case with room to spare (external F24 is about 10x7x9H). And it lists for just over $100.
I bought my group 24 battery from Antique Auto Battery in 2005 and it still works flawlessly in my 67 GT 350. Never had an issue with it.
Quote from: rcgt350 on April 03, 2018, 11:22:54 PM
I bought my group 24 battery from Antique Auto Battery in 2005 and it still works flawlessly in my 67 GT 350. Never had an issue with it.
The only problem is that you have a flawlessly working 1968 era looking battery in your car and not a 67 type that would be in the car from new. Also most likely your car would have come with a group 22 battery from the factory unless it got the heavy duty battery option for some reason like air condition for example. Regardless the repro batteries are 68-70 style. FYI congrats on the long lived battery. I have not heard of one that has lasted near that long.
For every story of a repo group 24 battery lasting 'for years', I can find you 10 stories of them dying prematurely. I paid way too much considering it has a cheap Chinese golf cart battery inside, and now it's dead.
Quote from: BGlover67 on April 04, 2018, 10:07:44 AM
For every story of a repo group 24 battery lasting 'for years', I can find you 10 stories of them dying prematurely. I paid way too much considering it has a cheap Chinese golf cart battery inside, and now it's dead.
That I did not know. :-\
It looks like the battery from my kids "Power Wheels" cars when the were younger.
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
^^^^^Made even easier with today's AGM batteries. No acid to deal with and they are smaller in size.
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
...WORD!!!!
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
It sounds like a good job for you ;) Show us how it is done. I feel your frustration and all kidding aside once you check into this I think you you will find ( like dozens of investor others over the last at least 8 years or so have found out) that the mold process to make the case is the expensive part of the issue not the battery inside. What you are suggesting is the major stumbling block that keeps it from getting done . The people investing are looking for a return on their money and aren't doing it for "the love of the cars". The 3 D printing would be a good alternative for limited quantities IMO but I think it is too optimistic to think that a large 3 D printed part like a battery box to be very cheap. This is a complicated subject otherwise it would have been already done. The who ever someone that tries had better have the money ,marketing skills and patience besides "gumption " to make the substantial investment pay off . A viable injection mold along with selling enough units just to get back the initial investment are just a couple hurdles . There are others.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 04, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
It sounds like a good job for you ;) Show us how it is done. I feel your frustration and all kidding aside once you check into this I think you you will find ( like dozens of investor others over the last at least 8 years or so have found out) that the mold process to make the case is the expensive part of the issue not the battery inside. What you are suggesting is the major stumbling block that keeps it from getting done . The people investing are looking for a return on their money and aren't doing it for "the love of the cars". The 3 D printing would be a good alternative for limited quantities IMO but I think it is too optimistic to think that a large 3 D printed part like a battery box to be very cheap. This is a complicated subject otherwise it would have been already done. The who ever someone that tries had better have the money ,marketing skills and patience besides "gumption " to make the substantial investment pay off . A viable injection mold along with selling enough units just to get back the initial investment are just a couple hurdles . There are others.
Everything you've said makes sense, Bob. And, you're right - there is palpable frustration with not being able to have someone produce a correct looking and operating battery. Truth be told, the battery is one of the first things I notice when I look under the hood of a classic and it's disappointing to see a battery that I know works great, but doesn't look correct.
With that vain in mind, what is the best way to preserve one of the repop batteries that looks correct? It sounds like I should be ready to call a tow truck soon. :'(
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 04, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
It sounds like a good job for you ;) Show us how it is done. I feel your frustration and all kidding aside once you check into this I think you you will find ( like dozens of investor others over the last at least 8 years or so have found out) that the mold process to make the case is the expensive part of the issue not the battery inside. What you are suggesting is the major stumbling block that keeps it from getting done . The people investing are looking for a return on their money and aren't doing it for "the love of the cars". The 3 D printing would be a good alternative for limited quantities IMO but I think it is too optimistic to think that a large 3 D printed part like a battery box to be very cheap. This is a complicated subject otherwise it would have been already done. The who ever someone that tries had better have the money ,marketing skills and patience besides "gumption " to make the substantial investment pay off . A viable injection mold along with selling enough units just to get back the initial investment are just a couple hurdles . There are others.
I know your right Bob. I've been using the cheese ball top plate "look alike" to cover my modern batteries for years.
QSS
Quote from: Shelby_0022 on April 04, 2018, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 04, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
It sounds like a good job for you ;) Show us how it is done. I feel your frustration and all kidding aside once you check into this I think you you will find ( like dozens of investor others over the last at least 8 years or so have found out) that the mold process to make the case is the expensive part of the issue not the battery inside. What you are suggesting is the major stumbling block that keeps it from getting done . The people investing are looking for a return on their money and aren't doing it for "the love of the cars". The 3 D printing would be a good alternative for limited quantities IMO but I think it is too optimistic to think that a large 3 D printed part like a battery box to be very cheap. This is a complicated subject otherwise it would have been already done. The who ever someone that tries had better have the money ,marketing skills and patience besides "gumption " to make the substantial investment pay off . A viable injection mold along with selling enough units just to get back the initial investment are just a couple hurdles . There are others.
Everything you've said makes sense, Bob. And, you're right - there is palpable frustration with not being able to have someone produce a correct looking and operating battery. Truth be told, the battery is one of the first things I notice when I look under the hood of a classic and it's disappointing to see a battery that I know works great, but doesn't look correct.
With that vain in mind, what is the best way to preserve one of the repop batteries that looks correct? It sounds like I should be ready to call a tow truck soon. :'(
There is not much you can do but do NOT let the battery go dead. That will kill a marginal battery and half the life of a new one. Of course sometimes it is by accident . If you aren't going to drive your car for a couple weeks put it on a decent float charger/battery tender. Not to be confused with a trickle charger.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 04, 2018, 08:54:59 PM
Quote from: Shelby_0022 on April 04, 2018, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 04, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
How about make an outer shell that sleeves over an existing battery (not just the top plate that we currently have). It would simple be plastic with two connections to hook up outer shell + and - posts to the + and - battery posts hidden within that shell case.
With 3D printing these days, that's gotta be somewhat easy, right?
QSS
It sounds like a good job for you ;) Show us how it is done. I feel your frustration and all kidding aside once you check into this I think you you will find ( like dozens of investor others over the last at least 8 years or so have found out) that the mold process to make the case is the expensive part of the issue not the battery inside. What you are suggesting is the major stumbling block that keeps it from getting done . The people investing are looking for a return on their money and aren't doing it for "the love of the cars". The 3 D printing would be a good alternative for limited quantities IMO but I think it is too optimistic to think that a large 3 D printed part like a battery box to be very cheap. This is a complicated subject otherwise it would have been already done. The who ever someone that tries had better have the money ,marketing skills and patience besides "gumption " to make the substantial investment pay off . A viable injection mold along with selling enough units just to get back the initial investment are just a couple hurdles . There are others.
Everything you've said makes sense, Bob. And, you're right - there is palpable frustration with not being able to have someone produce a correct looking and operating battery. Truth be told, the battery is one of the first things I notice when I look under the hood of a classic and it's disappointing to see a battery that I know works great, but doesn't look correct.
With that vain in mind, what is the best way to preserve one of the repop batteries that looks correct? It sounds like I should be ready to call a tow truck soon. :'(
There is not much you can do but do NOT let the battery go dead. That will kill a marginal battery and half the life of a new one. Of course sometimes it is by accident . If you aren't going to drive your car for a couple weeks put it on a decent float charger/battery tender. Not to be confused with a trickle charger.
Makes sense - thanks!
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
QSS
Define who is going to declare what is the absolute Concours acceptance criteria...before everybody buys one.
Quote from: roddster on April 05, 2018, 02:26:32 PM
Quote from: QuickSilverShelby on April 04, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
It's simply hard to believe that people will take the time and effort to fake an entire Shelby car and yet no one has the gumption to legitimately make a concourse correct Group 22 and Group 24 battery.
QSS
Define who is going to declare what is the absolute Concours acceptance criteria...before everybody buys one.
That would be Pookie...
We seem to have decent pics of what group 22 and 24 batteries look like -- on the top.
But are pictures available of the long and short sides? I mean a direct head on and not just a top view that happens to show the sides?
I think a lot of people would interested in if/how the sides changed during the 64 1/2 to 67 time period. Yes, both group 22 and group 24 batteries.
Where I'm going with this is to make a mold of the repop group 24 -- I have access to one -- and remake the entire top to have the correct lettering.
Are the sides of the 68 group 24 red cap repop correct for an assembly line 67 group 24 red or yellow cap battery?
Quote from: Bossbill on February 05, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
We seem to have decent pics of what group 22 and 24 batteries look like -- on the top.
But are pictures available of the long and short sides? I mean a direct head on and not just a top view that happens to show the sides?
I think a lot of people would interested in if/how the sides changed during the 64 1/2 to 67 time period. Yes, both group 22 and group 24 batteries.
Where I'm going with this is to make a mold of the repop group 24 -- I have access to one -- and remake the entire top to have the correct lettering.
Are the sides of the 68 group 24 red cap repop correct for an assembly line 67 group 24 red or yellow cap battery?
Yes, the guys with old originals. Amperes, plates and hours amounts as well as dimensions.
22F and 24F have the ampere rating and number of plates molded into the short side, on the negative post side of the battery.
Per the 60-68 MPC the assembly line batteries for
Mustangs were as listed here. I know, I know. The MPC isn't the authority. Let's just use this as a start point, not an end point. I'll update this post as better data comes in:
- Yr Start..........Group....Engine.....Amps...Plates...Length.....Width.....Height
- 60/4..............20.........6/8.........40........54........9 3/8.......5 1/2......8.......
- 65/7..............22.........6/8.........45........54........9.............6 3/4......8.......
- 65/7..............24.........6/8.........55........66........10 1/4......6 3/4.....8.......
- 67.................24.........8............65........66........10 1/4......6 3/4.....8.......
There were no group 20 batteries available for Mustang. It is listed as other later MPCs imply they were.
The last group 24 listed I believe is the red cap.
Also note that the amperage above is Amp Hours for the battery, not the alternator. This is often a point of confusion.
The details you are looking for are known, the roadblock has been cost and licensing. Also, without MCA wanting to see them in cars (no points-off for not having them) means little demand other than the hand-full of people on this and a couple other sites.
Do you have an agreement for licensing in place? Funding?
(not trying to toss a wrench, I would like to see this happen too. Start-up cost and Licensing was the stumbling block)
I have a company here in germany that can scan every kind of parts with a machine and then print this thing in plastic so where is the deal? Making a case exact like the original and then put in a batterie like the reproductions of the red cap battery are built they are also only a case with a smaller battery inside and the quality of the battery inside is poor.
Quote from: Kent on February 05, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
I have a company here in germany that can scan every kind of parts with a machine and then print this thing in plastic so where is the deal? ....
We have the machines available at public libraries here but the products the machines turn out often at not the quality needed for a decent/good reproduction. Then of course there is that "little " ::) issue of licensing. Many places will not want to expose themselves to what follows and simply refuse to do anything dealing with copyrights, registered names, logos and so on especially since these would likely be publically offered and advertised. Once made they would possibly become "required" for full points just like tires and other reproductions are today. It's IMHO just a chicken or the egg discussion at that point. Think once you have a chicken eggs are likely to follow
I would bet that it will happen. We'll just have to see who does it first and to an acceptable level of quality
Quote from: J_Speegle on February 05, 2019, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: Kent on February 05, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
I have a company here in germany that can scan every kind of parts with a machine and then print this thing in plastic so where is the deal? ....
We have the machines available at public libraries here but the products the machines turn out often at not the quality needed for a decent/good reproduction. Then of course there is that "little " ::) issue of licensing. Many places will not want to expose themselves to what follows and simply refuse to do anything dealing with copyrights, registered names, logos and so on especially since these would likely be publically offered and advertised. Once made they would possibly become "required" for full points just like tires and other reproductions are today. It's IMHO just a chicken or the egg discussion at that point. Think once you have a chicken eggs are likely to follow
I would bet that it will happen. We'll just have to see who does it first and to an acceptable level of quality
^^^Yes
Quote from: JD on February 05, 2019, 03:18:39 PM
The details you are looking for are known, the roadblock has been cost and licensing. Also, without MCA wanting to see them in cars (no points-off for not having them) means little demand other than the hand-full of people on this and a couple other sites.
Do you have an agreement for licensing in place? Funding?
(not trying to toss a wrench, I would like to see this happen too. Start-up cost and Licensing was the stumbling block)
Quote from: JD on February 05, 2019, 03:18:39 PM
The details you are looking for are known, the roadblock has been cost and licensing. Also, without MCA wanting to see them in cars (no points-off for not having them) means little demand other than the hand-full of people on this and a couple other sites.
Do you have an agreement for licensing in place? Funding?
(not trying to toss a wrench, I would like to see this happen too. Start-up cost and Licensing was the stumbling block)
I'm not sure if this comment was in reply to me, but my objective is to make a high durometer silicone multi-piece mold from a 68 repop -- if we concur that the case mold is the same as a 67.
After I have a top mold I will make another positive, remove the square warranty section and lay on the yellow caution in relief. Make a mold of that.
The idea is to make it hollow from a high durometer (60) urethane and hide a battery in it. The hardest part is putting lead posts in it and hooking those to the battery.
This isn't that technical -- it's the next step beyond 101 mold making. . My wife has hundreds of concrete molds, slip molds, etc so I'll enlist her help as the Mold Mistress (that sounds odd...).
I'm making it for me. I've done weirder things.
Quote from: Kent on February 05, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
I have a company here in germany that can scan every kind of parts with a machine and then print this thing in plastic so where is the deal? Making a case exact like the original and then put in a batterie like the reproductions of the red cap battery are built they are also only a case with a smaller battery inside and the quality of the battery inside is poor.
Have you priced getting something the size of a 24F battery 3D printed? Have a place in NC that about took my breath away with their quote.
The problem with 3D printing is the surface texture. It is very difficult to get a smooth surface like originals.
The best solution I have found is to 3D scan an original battery and use that to have an injection mold made. Only problem with that is the injection mold could run $15-25k depending how it's made. This would be for a hollow battery, 5 sides, with a screw in bottom that could hold a small AGM battery.
Another option is to mill the raised section of a repro 24F off where the sticker goes. Then somehow figure out how to apply the raised lettering, either as an insert from a 3D scan/print, or something else.
Quote from: Bossbill on February 05, 2019, 06:20:18 PM
Quote from: JD on February 05, 2019, 03:18:39 PM
The details you are looking for are known, the roadblock has been cost and licensing. Also, without MCA wanting to see them in cars (no points-off for not having them) means little demand other than the hand-full of people on this and a couple other sites.
Do you have an agreement for licensing in place? Funding?
(not trying to toss a wrench, I would like to see this happen too. Start-up cost and Licensing was the stumbling block)
I'm not sure if this comment was in reply to me, but my objective is to make a high durometer silicone multi-piece mold from a 68 repop -- if we concur that the case mold is the same as a 67.
After I have a top mold I made another positive, remove the square warranty section and lay on the yellow caution in relief. Make a mold of that.
The idea is to make it hollow from a high durometer (60) urethane and hide a battery in it. The hardest part is putting lead posts in it and hooking those to the battery.
This isn't that technical -- it's the next step beyond 101 mold making. . My wife has hundreds of concrete molds, slip molds, etc so I'll enlist her help as the Mold Mistress (that sounds odd...).
I'm making it for me. I've done weirder things.
FYI this isn't the first time someone has looked into doing this. I have lost count of the attempts I have heard about. I have yet to see a prototype that even looks remotely acceptable. I wish you the best of luck with your effort because we need something.
Quote from: Bossbill on February 05, 2019, 06:20:18 PM
I'm making it for me.
Not an "attack on you". If one just for you then I'm guessing you'll by-pass the licensing issue - one and done?
As for 3D printing, as stated above it is not a reasonable production method or final product surface quality or for mass production. And the will need to have a licensing agreement in place to use the Autolite name which if I understand correctly Ford does not own, sold years ago.
Yes, making a mold of the top (24F) without the sticker pad but with the proper text molded in (the yellow is added on the surface later) is a great start, the samples I've seen were not correct (size, font etc) but again there are those that have/know the right stuff and can help.
This has been brought to the attention of current manufacturers and they see no reason to change even after being shown the difference and offers to help and they already have the licensing to use and sell items with the Autolite identity.
Quote from: JD on February 05, 2019, 10:15:21 PM
Quote from: Bossbill on February 05, 2019, 06:20:18 PM
I'm making it for me.
Not an "attack on you". If one just for you then I'm guessing you'll by-pass the licensing issue - one and done?
JD -- Although your reply was right after my post I wasn't sure if your were talking to me about licensing. I meant nothing with my reply -- just making sure I was replying to the right person.
The Autolite name is now owned by Honeywell (https://trademarks.justia.com/783/66/autolite-78366169.html), of all companies. Follow link for info.
Hopefully they won't come after me if I do succeed for the one (or two ;) ).
If financing is a big part of the problem, I wonder if capital could be raised via a kickstarter project? Everyone who donates get's the opportunity to purchase the finished product at a reduced rate or something.
I have cut out battery from the bottom inside the -68 repro 24 i bought from Antique Auto battery 2015. Battery inside the case is Enersys Odyssey PC925 28Ah/20h. It is normally a well working battery but the have use a non good orientation. I do the same but use a C&D Dynasty UPS12-150MRX 36Ah/20h in the best orientation for a AGM battery. We normally use this but in larger size for genset. GT500 starters take about 2KW, about 200 Amps so its OK for it. This battery can take 269 Amps for 60 seconds (gone in 60 seconds). Short Circuit 1475 Amps. I also change the red cap to the yellow cap and sticker from the repro top i bought from NPD but have the body/case still there. :P ET
Quote from: Eritor on February 24, 2019, 09:23:37 AM
I have cut out battery from the bottom inside the -68 repro 24 i bought from Antique Auto battery 2015. Battery inside the case is Enersys Odyssey PC925 28Ah/20h. It is normally a well working battery but the have use a non good orientation. I do the same but use a C&D Dynasty UPS12-150MRX 36Ah/20h in the best orientation for a AGM battery. We normally use this but in larger size for genset. GT500 starters take about 2KW, about 200 Amps so its OK for it. This battery can take 269 Amps for 60 seconds (gone in 60 seconds). Short Circuit 1475 Amps. I also change the red cap to the yellow cap and sticker from the repro top i bought from NPD but have the body/case still there. :P ET
Valuable Intel for those wanting to try the same thing. Thank you for sharing .
Quote from: Eritor on February 24, 2019, 09:23:37 AM
I have cut out battery from the bottom inside the -68 repro 24 i bought from Antique Auto battery 2015. Battery inside the case is Enersys Odyssey PC925 28Ah/20h. It is normally a well working battery but the have use a non good orientation. ...........................
Nice job and thanks for sharing (with pictures) your efforts. Should provide valuable for those looking for an alternative as well as motivation for them
I love the results but I want to get someone else cut the bottom out of the battery, deal with the acid and the lead plates. Any volunteers?
"Sticker for the top". Yeah well I had one done in 3d, (the letters are about 1/16th thick or so) just like the original as I did a rubbing of an assemblyline battery. That idea got shot down. Funny how they don't remember that.......
My cut is not into the battery chemicals. If you cut in cc as the new battery size at the bottom of the repro -68, you should not go into the lead acid but the case is thick. Discharge it before you cut. Use goggles 8) ET
Quote from: shelbydoug on February 24, 2019, 02:04:09 PM
I love the results but I want to get someone else cut the bottom out of the battery, deal with the acid and the lead plates. Any volunteers?
I found an old early reproduction that had never had the acid added by the first purchaser for $25 at a swap meet.
Wonder what the faces of the people at the home recyclable item center will be when I drop off the chunk of lead I'll be taking out. Can't think think of anything I want or need to make from it. Use tin instead to plate the gas tank filler necks rather than lead.
I see on the original batteries shown there are letter and number stampings; (yellow cap F-22 looks like, 60 8 07), and the red cap one (DKS). Just wondering what these might refer to?
Quote from: kram350 on March 19, 2019, 12:40:50 PM
I see on the original batteries shown there are letter and number stampings; (yellow cap F-22 looks like, 60 8 07), and the red cap one (DKS). Just wondering what these might refer to?
The yellow cap in the picture is not a 65-67 original battery . I am sure the owner will take that mistaken identity as a compliment. It was however made out of a later 68-70 group 22 original battery which are only slightly easier to find. The numbers you are seeing were already heat stamped into the donor battery case. That is part of a date code and MFG internal numbering system for that 68-70 time period .
OK thanks. I just took for granted as it stated "Assembly Line F-22" and the red cap one as original?
Quote from: kram350 on March 19, 2019, 03:27:34 PM
OK thanks. I just took for granted as it stated "Assembly Line F-22" and the red cap one as original?
With five on going pages you need to be more specific of the picture and post you are referencing for the most accurate response. For example I assumed that the picture in reply #69 is what you were referencing in your post reply #72 because it is so close to that one . In the first page of the on going 5 pages (reply #4) is a picture of both a original 65-67 assemblyline battery in the yellow caps and a original assemblyline base battery (22F) for a 68-70 in the red caps. The service replacement version battery can be the same size in 68-70 but the sticker in that case on the service replacement would have a punch out dot's to indicate the date it would be put into service for warranty purposes.
Sorry, yes I was referring to the yellow capped unit as labeled "Assembly Line F-22" as shown in reply#4. Is it a correct Assembly Line unit, 65-67 with the heat embossed (60 8 07) ?
I was also referring to the red capped one in reply #6, which seems to be the same battery as the yellow capped in reply #4 , but with red caps and lettering highlighted in red with DKS embossed?
What's the difference between these two, yellow and red, just assemble line and service?
Quote from: kram350 on March 19, 2019, 09:34:38 PM
Sorry, yes I was referring to the yellow capped unit as labeled "Assembly Line F-22" as shown in reply#4. Is it a correct Assembly Line unit, 65-67 with the heat embossed (60 8 07) ?
I was also referring to the red capped one in reply #6, which seems to be the same battery as the yellow capped in reply #4 , but with red caps and lettering highlighted in red with DKS embossed?
What's the difference between these two, yellow and red, just assemble line and service?
There is a big difference between those two. The yellow cap battery in reply 4 is a 22 F and the red cap battery in reply #6 is a group 24 battery which is dimensionally longer and higher capacity . There is also a group 24 battery with yellow caps not shown. The cap color difference is to identify the capacity between the same size batteries. Typically the yellow cap is a base battery for cars with no engine options . The base battery was typically not serviced . The service battery was typically a higher capacity battery. The higher capacity battery is a option or it's use can be automatically triggered by air conditioning or thermactor in a big block.