SAAC Forum

Here is the engine tag off of car #1847, GT500, 4-speed, no a/c, no thermactor.

Quote from: shelbydoug on January 16, 2021, 06:50:13 PM
On the label, what is the number and degree sign for?

Ignition timing.

Quote from: shlb69 on January 15, 2021, 11:35:35 PM
How much

Pm sent.  Tried calling no answer.

Here is a C9ZE-D radiator so you know what your looking for.  This one might be a little to far gone.
Chris

There is wire wound sleeves/housings and blackish plastic sleeves/housings.  Some 69's have a metal retainer that is screwed to the fire wall, some are plastic even on a wire wound sleeve.  Most assembly line originals have a white plastic tube for the end that attaches to the carb and are dated there as well.  Most replacements have a black plastic tube end.

I believe my dads Dark Moss car(591)was in the group when made, with this one and wonder why they were finished so far behind schedule. Dads was finished at Ford Jan 11th, 20 days behind.  Any one know the reason?  Interesting that dads Ford VIN is over 10,000 units before this one, but dads Shelby number is later.

Quote from: Bossbill on January 10, 2021, 04:06:40 PM
The "C7ZZ-D" fork is the top one in my last pic.
The problem is that this, and many other forks, have no ID stamped on them.
This makes the identity a guessing game based on length and other features. I had to rely on the vendor for the ID.
Unfortunately, Gregory's 289 HiPO book also contains mention of the C7ZZ-D fork stamped "C7ZA-E".

Here is the ebay C3AZ-B Galaxie fork (pic 1). It looks just like my supposed C7ZZ-D fork.

The worst part all of this is the total length measurement is immaterial. While it can used it as a rough ID, the only correct way is to measure from the end of the TO bearing double fork to the pivot slot and from the pivot slot to the cone depression.
This would give you the motion ratio. Anything outside of cone depression is for spring retention. The distance between the double forks at the TO end should also be stated.

Thanks!  Obviously what you have is not a C7ZZ-D, which I pictured above in post 5 and you now have confirmation.   Put the C5OZ-B (snake tongue) in and be done.

Bill, What does the C7ZZ-D fork you bought look like?  It should look like the one I posted a picture of in post #5 (third fork over in second photo) and would not work on a 289 because it is for the 390. It was only used a little over a year on the Mustang/Fairlane until February 1968 when Ford switched to the clip retainer instead of the wire.  The MPC is wrong again, as you stated.  It sounds like you agree with Bob and I about the "snake tongue" fork being correct for a 289.
And again, the top one in your last picture is for a Galaxie and appears to be the same as the eBay link I posted above and is not a C7ZZ-7515-D.

I agree with Bob about #3 in the first post.  Here are a few of the Mustang big block forks, left two are the same, just to show how different they are then the small block forks.

Quote from: shelbydoug on January 08, 2021, 08:14:26 PM
It would indicate that the length of mine is ok then so it must be the location of the markings is wrong?

What is the distance to the full marking?

Original C7's ~17-1/2 from top of bell to top full circle. C7AE is the same.
Service C7 ~17-5/16 from top of bell to top safe line
D0OE is ~16-1/2 form top of bell to top safe line
The Scott Drake C7OE-A stick I have is ~17-5/8 from the bell to the top safe line. 

I'm coming up with 10" on the the tubes, depending on how straight they are on several I have here.  Here are a bunch of sticks, top is the D0OE-C, second from top is a C7OE-A Ford service replacement with the dimpled handle and Add 2 Add 1 notations. The other 5 chrome are original C7OE-A with the bottom two having the tips trimmed off some and that's why they are shorter.  The non-chrome stick is the C7AE-A and is the same length as the (5) C7OE-A originals and the level markings are in the same locations as well.  I'm coming up with ~19-3/8" on the sticks from the tip to the top of the bell for the originals and the DO stick and C7 service stick are longer at a smidge over 20".

The first one looks like a Galaxie.  The 390 Mustang are nearly identical to the 428 Mustang other than the 390 throw out bearing forks are closer together for the 1-1/16 input shaft and are nothing like the three you have.  They both have the large hole where the rod/pivot ball goes, unlike any you have, but are 12". 
There is several listed on eBay that look exactly like the 12" fork you have, that are early Galaxie.  This one says over all length is 12" and are not correct for your 289.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/USED-63-64-Ford-Mercury-Clutch-Fork-Release-Lever-352-390-427-C3AZ-7515-B-NICE-/223569103482

Here's a neat photo off the cover of a 1968 Ford Shop Tip.  Big block C7OF-A ink stamped, almost looks like 7B dated.  This brings up the point of the GT500s using the ink stamp starter as well.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on January 06, 2021, 11:51:17 PM

Quote from: tgilliam on January 06, 2021, 09:31:34 PM
Just for clarification, the car being discussed, #1376, was completed at Ford on March 02, 1967. I believe that is still in the ink-stamped period, although at the end. This would have been before the die-stamped starters became the prominent assembly line part. I believe an ink-stamped starter was original on this car (it may still be with the parts that came off at tear-down).
The April 12, 1967 date mentioned above is the SA completion date.

Tom Gilliam
tom.gilliam@logan-aluminum.com

Tom, I think that the transitioned to the metal stamp happened much later in 67 maybe August but that is just a guess based on the latest  ink stamp dates I have been able to read on specific 67 289 and FE engines. I will find 10 metal unstamped cases that I can't read for every one that I can read and even less that I can read the date. There may have been a time during the transition when both types were used before old stock was used up.

So true, Bob. 
So, no one has a picture of an original '67 GT350, C7AF-B ink stamp starter?  What are guys doing when they restore/re-stamp them?  Surely not using the cheesy sticker!  I would assume a C7AF-B ink stamp starter would be an Autolite as well.

Quote from: George Schalk on January 06, 2021, 02:24:29 PM

Quote from: 430dragpack on January 06, 2021, 02:17:38 PM

Quote from: George Schalk on January 06, 2021, 02:02:24 PM
I managed to look at a few of the n.o.s. starters I have and posted some pics, which I hope help with detailing and figuring out what may be correct for your car.  The first starter has an ink stamp with the following info, "C7ZF-11001-A", dated "7G28C".  The nose has a part # C6OF-11131-A casting.  There is no die stamp on this starter.  Notice the black paint is faded as it gets closer to the collar of the nose.

Good pictures, but that is for a 170 cid, 6 cylinder, so the nose cone isn't correct for a small block. It's orientation is almost opposite of a small block.

The pics are to show some of the basic detail from period starters.  I hope it helps.

Yes, I understand and thanks again for the pictures.  I just wanted to make sure you were not trying to say the C6OF-A nose cone was correct for his application. Your second starter would work fine on his car but obviously not dated correctly and the nose cone is the replacement for the C3OF-A.