f.y.i.... I am in no way connected to this offering other than I bought a knob from this seller. The seller has had multiple ones to sell and they have sometimes been priced lower either of the two common inaccurate reproductions on the commercial market concurrently.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1962-1963-1964-Ford-Galaxie-Four-Speed-Shift-Gear-Knob-Original-Hipo-406-427/223555606993?epid=22013083738&hash=item340cf3d9d1:g:9XwAAOSw7vxbeBel (https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1962-1963-1964-Ford-Galaxie-Four-Speed-Shift-Gear-Knob-Original-Hipo-406-427/223555606993?epid=22013083738&hash=item340cf3d9d1:g:9XwAAOSw7vxbeBel)
To the best of my knowledge this is the correct "assembly line" knob for CSX2001 through CSX2200 Cobras and one of two prototype Sunbeam Tigers and the first 56 production Sunbeam Tigers. From my Cobra Transmissions notes: "Note: Contrary to mythology the short style Sunbeam Tiger shift lever is not the same as a Cobra's. The Cobra and Tiger lever assemblies were made slightly differently in design and manufacturing details, probably made by different suppliers, and had a slightly different overall length based on original samples we have gotten to measure. Part of the confusion is that the very first few Tigers got Cobra transmissions and shifters before Rootes came up with a production supply of their own. A noted Sunbeam Tiger researcher has published that the first fifty six (56) production Sunbeam Tigers made in the summer of 1964 were fitted with 1963 Cobra gear shift systems and late 1963 onward aluminum cased Cobra Borg-Warner T-10 four speed manual transmissions. Based on what I could find published one of the two prototype Tigers also used a Cobra transmission and shifting systems so that would be fifty seven (57) Tigers total with CSX2001 through CSX2200 gear shift levers and knob assemblies. (CSX2201 and later Cobras used different lever and knob assemblies.)"
Dan, is that the 1/2-20 thread size?
Thanks
I am not convinced that this is a NOS part, or an original for that matter. I believe that the material used to manufacture these knobs was more of a bakelight material rather than plastic. I believe the material was more like the material used in the two piece black/chrome shift knobs that were produced after the knob in question was produced. Also of suspect is the font type for the number "4", it appears much to standard. Please see my photo of the original that I have for comparison.
The ebay ads knob...
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 04, 2019, 09:37:07 PM
The ebay ads knob...
Your photo is not from the Ebay ad? The background is different.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0O8AAOSwOA1Z~38N/s-l1600.jpg)
Actually I think it is. They're 2 eBay ads for shift knobs. One sold for $180 and one for sale at $150.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1962-1963-1964-Ford-Galaxie-Four-Speed-Shift-Gear-Knob-Original-Hipo-406-427-/223555606993?_trksid=p2349526.m4383.l44720.c10&nordt=true&rt=nc
Gap different between "points" and numbers for sure.and it doesn't seem like wear....at least from photos..
Well like Dan mentioned, quality control was loosely monitored if at all. May be the slight differences we see. JMO
First, yes, the common Ford manual transmission knob(s) thread size for a number of years was ½-20.
My original post does not cover what was used by Ford Motor Company on their many assembly lines for the 1962 model year design or how many vendors they had to supply "knobs" or how many tools each supplier may or may not have had. It does not cover all the possible assembly line versions nor any version or versions for offered as a service part while Ford was legally obliged to. Manufacturers were never required to make every given part from multiple suppliers or just tools 100% identical. (I worked in manufacturing 37 years and we often had more than one supplier for some parts and they were never 100% alike for all kinds of reasons. To make everybody do everything 100% exactly in every detail the same would add way too much cost to final products. The finer the details to match the more time and money it takes exponentially. Therefore each drawing or specification had 'critical to performance' set of details that all suppliers of a given part had to meet with everything else subject to some extra latitude in being different. ) Manufacturers were never required and still are not required to offer post production service parts 100% the same as production models as long as the same purpose is served.
The post does not cover the known reproductions, some available for decades, nor the sellers that offer at least two different reproductions as new old stock with the implications that they genuine Ford products from the 1960s.
The information provided ONLY covers what our research project found on unrestored substantially unmodified early Cobras and those first Sunbeam Tigers that obtained parts from the Cobra program through Shelby American. In such research restored, raced, and modified all over inside and out cars are of no interest. Anybody can and did do just about everything you can imagine to Cobras after delivery.
Of all the many "possible" 1962 type knobs out there today our research project turned up just a single version on early unmolested Cobras and Tigers. Like most parts, the closer you look the more details you can identify. That makes sense, we have no evidence that Ford sent parts from every one of their mass production suppliers of small parts to AC Cars, Continental Cars, or Shelby American. Based on shipping labels on manufacturer's parts boxes from Shelby American to customers or dealers, Ford suppliers often drop shipped parts directly to Shelby's works without having to go through a Ford distribution center. My favorite example: oil fill and crankcase breather caps for 1964 engines in street Cobras. There were at least five different versions of "open" and "closed" emissions caps 1963-64 that look very much the same installed. Looking at one on a car (not necessarily a Cobra) today and a different one on another car later would lead you to believe they were the same. If you find a dozen or so and compare them side by side they are all similar but clearly all slightly different. In my study since 1982 just one of the five versions has been found on low mile and or one owner low mile unrestored Cobras with 1964 model engines. That is not "proof" that none of the other four known versions of that one engineering model "never" made it into a new street Cobra with a 1964 model year engine before retail sale but it is a very strong trend. Did any other caps get used for sure? Based on factory and commercial new car pictures, yes, cars modified or completed by the Shelby American race shop could have gotten one of several 1962-63 caps, the 1964 cap for street cars, or near the end of the Cobra era an early 1965 cap.
Regarding appearance. Original production 1962-65 model years of black 'plastic' knobs were not created with a grainy gray appearance to the best of my knowledge looking at them and handling many since 1964. Their appearance does change dramatically over time depending on many factors production and otherwise. Example: When we bought CSX2310 it had a replacement gear shift knob, a reproduction. It was not until 1999 that the second owner of the car contacted me out of the blue and wanted to know where to mail the car's original to that I knew any "knob history". The second owner replaced the original knob assembly with a custom one he liked and stored the original. Somewhere between the time he sold the car circa 1972 and 1982 a nice pretty stock type replacement was installed. In 1983 we bought the car and I hunted down a genuine new old stock set of knob pieces in the old blue and gray service packages. Its top section was deep black and extremely glossy. It did not stay that way. The car still uses the knob parts I installed in 1983. (The original mailed to me in 1999 is kept safe in a display case.) Decades of handling, sun, and yes rain from time to time has turned it a dull grainy gray. Will a reproduction age like that? I have no idea, I have tossed the reproductions that were on both our cars as purchased and ones on close friend's cars in the trash.
It wasn't a comment by anybody but I toss it in, no matter what version your own study leads you to want, buyer beware. Not long ago a $40ish reproduction of the 1962 style knob was being offered on eBay® for $200+ as 'nos' and the picture in the listing looked identical (same manufacturing error) as the low cost replacement offered by a reproduction parts dealer.
I was a tool maker and machinist all my life and you are exactly right from one manufacturer to another.
Very well said....
Quote from: 69mach351w on July 05, 2019, 11:16:43 AM
I was a tool maker and machinist all my life and you are exactly right from one manufacturer to another.
Very well said....
Thanks.
We used 37,000+ of one particular large plastic part every 24 hours five days a week in assembly. Our in-house injection molding operation ran 24/7 using more than one mold with more than one cavity in more than one press and we could only make enough to cover 22,000ish five days a week in assembly. We had other suppliers (two) make tooling and start making parts. The particular grade of plastic used as primary material was 'allocated' by the maker so sometime we ran short and our other part molders ran short. Engineering added an alternate material to the drawing which was more expensive by a lot but functionally fine. Imagine the situation where we had:
- 4 molds each with multiple cavities
- Installed in 3 different plants with 3 different presses and 3 different sets of production people
- 2 different plastic resins that were not exactly the same color
Not a big surprise but there was a large "board" near the assembly line with labeled examples of all the possible versions attached to it. Production operators were trained to put versions together that "looked" the same and yes they sometime mixed them up and yes we had to hire temporary crews to unbox product at the distribution warehouse and unmix the versions not acceptable to be used in one machine. Whew!
Quote from: 69mach351w on July 05, 2019, 11:16:43 AM
I was a tool maker and machinist all my life and you are exactly right from one manufacturer to another.
Very well said....
Making accurate replacements of all most anything is very resource consuming.
Taking a used, usually worn, often damaged part, sometimes post production modified ....a single sample...to a job shop and telling them to make X number of replacements might be a stop off at the shop on the way somewhere else $XX/per part delivered few day process.
Finding the original factory drawings or specifications if you can (a cradle to grave 'design history book' would be super to find), finding three to five original production parts and reverse engineering every detail by taking at least five measurements of each dimension and if you have the tools measure each dimension multiple times with multiple methods; rounding up the part or parts the study subject interfaces with and going through all the measurements on them; pulling out the handbooks for whatever country 's system to make tables of design specifications for things like threads, bearings and seals; calculating the probable nominals for all the details not covered by standards, and doing some degree of tolerance loop study at 73°F and what will happen at normal operating temperature of all the parts is not quick, easy, or cheap by the time finished parts are in hand.
Most reproduction parts of any kind I come in contact with are not very good copies of anything. The one part that I find really funny is the C3RA Cobra emblem Ford had one of its suppliers make for 427 Cobra production and as an over the counter accessory. In 1984 a certain Cobra replacement part business showed me the "original" emblem it sent off to be copied and the first delivery they received. I was taken back a few seconds. I then told my friend that he used a REPRODUCTION as a sample for original. He had just paid to make a reproduction of a reproduction. He didn't care, they sold well. Fast forward a few years he ran out. He had been supplying a replicar maker with the reproduction of the reproduction emblem. The replicar company sent one (single sample) out and had replacements made. Their new cars thus started getting reproductions of reproductions of reproductions that were now quite a bit different in most details than what Ford's supplier provided in the 1960s.
I still think that the material used to make the part is a dead giveaway when it comes to identifying an original part vs the reproduction.
I never worked in injection molding, only worked in metal stamping/punching metal parts in dies.
And, as you know, the dies/molds will wear out and need some rebuilding/modifications/grinding to continue production, and there's where you lose the effect of piece parts being totally identical, which will never happen over a period of time.
Guys,
I am going to dig out and take a look at a NOS shift knob from a 57 ford Thunderbird.
Been several years since I looked at it, it sure looks the same, but had no shift pattern on it as I recall.
John
Quote from: 69mach351w on July 05, 2019, 06:26:02 PM
I never worked in injection molding, only worked in metal stamping/punching metal parts in dies.
And, as you know, the dies/molds will wear out and need some rebuilding/modifications/grinding to continue production, and there's where you lose the effect of piece parts being totally identical, which will never happen over a period of time.
Our plant was in manufacturing terms a very 'vertical' operation. That means we bought most raw materials and made our own parts. We received millions of pounds of all kinds of materials from many different types of plastic resin pellets to dozens of steel and aluminum materials in large coils. As you say every part changes slowly as every tool wears and gets serviced. In our plant, the first few parts from every mold or die after service, even just sharpening of metal working cut stages, required being checked for acceptability. Even if a given dimension was originally statistically 'on nominal' over time it would drift. If in 'tolerance' it was accepted as long as it did not have a problem in performance or for assembly operators. Being on nominal and being in tolerance are almost different subjects if let's say an operator has to bring three stamped metal parts together and fix them to the machine with a single threaded fastener on each end. If all three parts are very close to nominal the screws go in easily. If all the hole locations per part have drifted different ways, all in tolerance, operators can have a rough time doing the installation and that can quickly lead to repetitive motion injuries. In that case fixing one set of tooling wouldn't be a solution. We had to get all tools and back up tools brought close to nominal. Personally, I would have changed part and tooling drawings but our global company would not. To them making parts and tools more robust that 'normal' was an extra cost they could never get back. To the company it was up to the plant to put tool upkeep and assembly line issues in our budget in our division and not spread the cost across all the divisions globally.
I will go back to the C3RA "COBRA" emblem example. The original parts had text and symbols on their reverse identifying Ford, the maker, and the maker's mold number. There was no casting date. Parts made circa late 1965 through 1966 for new 427 Cobras were normally quite nice in appearance quality: no casting flash, no areas of incomplete filling, really fine chrome plating, crisp edges and details, and backgrounds painted nicely. Ford sold countless examples separately and as ancillaries to "Cobra Kits" until circa 1972. Based on the hundreds I have examined it appears that after Shelby American no longer needed them for new 427 Cobras in 1967 the condition of the mold was not maintained very well, incomplete filling of parts started showing up, details lost their crispness, casting flash was not always polished away, plating quality slipped, and painting quality of the backgrounds got haphazard. The very fine parts of an expensive sports car in 1966 because a cheap looking do-dad by the time Ford dropped them. Some of the ones people purchased circa 1971 are pretty rough looking things. Today most sellers don't distinguish between a great looking 1965-66ish part and a rough 1970ish part or the gradient in between. To most sellers a new old stock emblem is an emblem at a price point. People restoring 427 Cobras often hunt for really nice early parts. (Said another way, most sellers don't seem to see or maybe just understand the degradation of appearance over the 'production' time period and why not all parts have the same value to everybody.)
Great information Dan.
As a past Toolmaker/Machinist, I worked in defense for the Naval shipyard out of Newport News VA. Made parts for carriers and subs. In the early 80's we had tons of overhaul work as well. Tolerances in tools/molds/machining, were kept tight and checked like clock work.
So I understand exactly what you're explaining and sure that most here will read and understand as well about molded piece parts and how dies and molds, when not kept up to tolerances, will not produce identical parts over time/usage.
Also, super information about early Cobras and parts.