1968 Research Questions For U

PNewitt · Apr 10, 2009

I have a few research questions for anyone who wishes to take them on. This is for the book. Upon the trip back from Washington, I reviewed what I had so far, and came up with a few remaining loose ends that perhaps owners of the original cars could answer. Thanks for your help with any of this.

Here they are:

1. '67 Taillight frame holes: Who knows when Shelby went from exposed holes in the aluminum frames for the '67 Cougar lights (for the '67 Shelby), to no visible holes when the frame assemblies included attached threaded studs? Also- the date of change from inboard to outboard grille high beam lights (this is to narrow the production date of Little Red).

2. Any info on photographer "Pete Biro"?

3. Anyone ever see a '67 Shelby De Mexico coupe? It looks quite a lot like Little Red.

4. Any explainations for why Ford dropped the 427 and Tunnel Port 302 for '68?

5. Anyone in So Cal ever see or know of a 1968 Parnelli Jones Torino?

6. Anyone have a Factory-installed in-dash tachometer, with an automatic, and small block (or six cylinder?)

7. I'm looking for any rear (taillight) fiberglass panels that seem to be about 1/2 inch farther away from the metal '68 Mustang taillight piece than "normal". That is, when you look at the gas cap, the fiberglass panel doesn't seem to be flush with the base of the pop-off gas cap (by about 1/2"). This is a production variation with early production GT/CSs.

8. 1968 Cougar XR-7G production began when?? And at which plant(s)?

9. Anyone have a decent copy of the "FDAF" (Ford Dealers Advertising Fund) Logo??

10. I need a good, clear, sharp photo of someone's TV set in 1968. A good shot of the television in a living room. Perhaps a good old family photo. A console TV would be best.

11. I need a good past article, or page out of a Mustang book on how to decifer a (1968) build sheet (which I'll ask for permission to use)

12. (Without anyone going out and hurting themselves to answer this question): What is the fastest you've driven your stock GT/CS? (excluding drag cars).

13. Anyone have a primered inside of their trunklid? (original, factory only)

14. Anyone have a factory--or dealer installed rear-mounted antenna? (power type?)

15. Anyone have unusual factory and/or dealer options (like hood tachs) remote trunk release, vanity mirrors, etc..etc..

That's all for now. Thanks!

I'm getting close!

Paul.

rvrtrash · Apr 10, 2009

IIRC, the tunnel port 302 project was dropped because they wouldn't hold together. I'll ask on the Torino board I'm on if anyone in socal knows of the '68 Torino.

Steve

CougarCJ · Apr 10, 2009

Look for my notes inside your text.

PNewitt said:
I have a few research questions for anyone who wishes to take them on. This is for the book. Upon the trip back from Washington, I reviewed what I had so far, and came up with a few remaining loose ends that perhaps owners of the original cars could answer. Thanks for your help with any of this.

Here they are:

1. '67 Taillight frame holes: Who knows when Shelby went from exposed holes in the aluminum frames for the '67 Cougar lights (for the '67 Shelby), to no visible holes when the frame assemblies included attached threaded studs? Also- the date of change from inboard to outboard grille high beam lights (this is to narrow the production date of Little Red).

2. Any info on photographer "Pete Biro"?

3. Anyone ever see a '67 Shelby De Mexico coupe? It looks quite a lot like Little Red.

4. Any explainations for why Ford dropped the 427 and Tunnel Port 302 for '68?

Mercury still had a version of the 427 in 1968 - Think Mercury Cougar GT-E. :grin:

5. Anyone in So Cal ever see or know of a 1968 Parnelli Jones Torino?

6. Anyone have a Factory-installed in-dash tachometer, with an automatic, and small block (or six cylinder?)

7. I'm looking for any rear (taillight) fiberglass panels that seem to be about 1/2 inch farther away from the metal '68 Mustang taillight piece than "normal". That is, when you look at the gas cap, the fiberglass panel doesn't seem to be flush with the base of the pop-off gas cap (by about 1/2"). This is a production variation with early production GT/CSs.

8. 1968 Cougar XR-7G production began when?? And at which plant(s)?

http://www.myteesamoyeds.com/ginfo.html

9. Anyone have a decent copy of the "FDAF" (Ford Dealers Advertising Fund) Logo??

10. I need a good, clear, sharp photo of someone's TV set in 1968. A good shot of the television in a living room. Perhaps a good old family photo. A console TV would be best.

11. I need a good past article, or page out of a Mustang book on how to decifer a (1968) build sheet (which I'll ask for permission to use)

I would specify San Jose, like buck tags there may be some differences. Not sure.

12. (Without anyone going out and hurting themselves to answer this question): What is the fastest you've driven your stock GT/CS? (excluding drag cars).

13. Anyone have a primered inside of their trunk lid? (original, factory only)

14. Anyone have a factory--or dealer installed rear-mounted antenna? (power type?)

15. Anyone have unusual factory and/or dealer options (like hood tachs) remote trunk release, vanity mirrors, etc..etc..

That's all for now. Thanks!

I'm getting close!

Paul.

PNewitt · Apr 10, 2009

Thanks for the answers, guys. I'll check them all out!

We need to remind ourselves that the Cougar was very close to the Mustang in so many ways. In fact, the CS script on the rear quarters was inspired by the Cougar script in the same spot.

Another question: a. what is the amp draw off of six 1157 blubs. Each for turn signals/brakes, and for the headlight circuit.

b. With those amp values, what would be the defined load rating for the gauge of wiring used in the taillight harness?

My guess is that it's a borderline difference of demand versus load for those taillights.

It's difficult today to get taillights to be as bright as desired, due to old wiring, bad grounds, headlight and turn signal switch failures.

I know that this is technical, but we need to know this in order to make them work as intended (once and for all!)

thanks again,
Paul.

rvrtrash · Apr 11, 2009

Paul I took some measurements and came up with this for 18 gauge wire size and load. The stop light filament is .6 ohm. 6 would be 3.6 ohm. If we assume a wire distance of 20 ft, it's resistance would be .13 ohm. Wire and filament load would be 3.73 ohm. At 14.5 volts (max charge) we would have 3.89 amps. The taillight filament is 2.0 ohms. 6 would be 12 ohms. The wire resistance at 20 feet would be .13 ohms. Wire and filament load would be 12.13 ohms. At 14.5 volts we would have 1.2 amps. At 12.6 volts (nominal battery voltage) you would have 3.38 amps and 1.04 amps, respectively. 18 gauge wiring is rated to 16 amps. Basically, as long as the wire isn't broken, you have plenty of capacity in the wire. The issues would be in any connections or contacts that might be loose or corroded and add to the total resistance either on the power side or ground side. It wouldn't take very much resistance in a contact to change how much amperage is going through the filament, and make it dimmer. Hope this answered your question.

Steve

PNewitt said:
Another question: a. what is the amp draw off of six 1157 blubs. Each for turn signals/brakes, and for the headlight circuit.

b. With those amp values, what would be the defined load rating for the gauge of wiring used in the taillight harness?

My guess is that it's a borderline difference of demand versus load for those taillights.

It's difficult today to get taillights to be as bright as desired, due to old wiring, bad grounds, headlight and turn signal switch failures.

I know that this is technical, but we need to know this in order to make them work as intended (once and for all!)

thanks again,
Paul.

robert campbell · Apr 11, 2009

Not to state the obvious, but turn signal switches in GT/CS cars do not last long. I replaced mine in 1989 and again a couple years ago. My car is driven alot. I would guess that seldom driven cars are not as hard on them. I owned a 68 Shelby GT-500 KR in the mid 1970's for a couple years. Can't remember if it displayed the same electricl draw problems. 6 lights seem to stress the switch. Steve???

My small amount of knowledge also on the 302 Tunnel Port is that it was a build specifically for the Trans Am Racing series. Made huge high end power but was to "pipee" for that style of racing. Low end torque was a must coming out of the corners which were applenty! Also the Boss 302 debuted very soon after. My guess is a combination of poor performance and a better engine on (head design) the horizon.

The late 60's is when Ford pulled out of the direct sponsership of racing. If we can nail that down, I bet you will see the demize of alot of the high performance engines. The introduction of the 429/460 series was the main killer of the FE (390, 427, 428) engine. The 429/460 shared the same bellhouse as the later (351M and 400M) Cleveland base engines simplifying some production. The transition started in the big cars 1968 ish to my memory. Although the trucks used the FE block well into the 70's. By 71 it was a Boss 429 and Cobra/Super Cobra Jet game for high perfrormance in a big block.

The 429/460 are nicknamed the 385 series. They were the main demise of the FE.

Rob

PNewitt · Apr 11, 2009

Hey Steve!

WOW. What great information! Thank you so very much!

I'm going to do a bench test setup of six 1157 bulbs and watch the levels of amps & volts on a meter.

I'm glad to know that the wiring can carry the load. It's the turn signals and headlight switches that are next to be tested.

There might be an electronics solution to making those parts last longer.

Although, it might be the LED bulbs that may be the simple solution, since they draw a lot less amperage than the 1157 bulbs..

Thanks again!

Paul.

PNewitt · Apr 11, 2009

robert campbell said:
Not to state the obvious, but turn signal switches in GT/CS cars do not last long. I replaced mine in 1989 and again a couple years ago. My car is driven alot. I would guess that seldom driven cars are not as hard on them. I owned a 68 Shelby GT-500 KR in the mid 1970's for a couple years. Can't remember if it displayed the same electricl draw problems. 6 lights seem to stress the switch. Steve???

My small amount of knowledge also on the 302 Tunnel Port is that it was a build specifically for the Trans Am Racing series. Made huge high end power but was to "pipee" for that style of racing. Low end torque was a must coming out of the corners which were applenty! Also the Boss 302 debuted very soon after. My guess is a combination of poor performance and a better engine on (head design) the horizon.

The late 60's is when Ford pulled out of the direct sponsership of racing. If we can nail that down, I bet you will see the demize of alot of the high performance engines. The introduction of the 429/460 series was the main killer of the FE (390, 427, 428) engine. The 429/460 shared the same bellhouse as the later (351M and 400M) Cleveland base engines simplifying some production. The transition started in the big cars 1968 ish to my memory. Although the trucks used the FE block well into the 70's. By 71 it was a Boss 429 and Cobra/Super Cobra Jet game for high perfrormance in a big block.

The 429/460 are nicknamed the 385 series. They were the main demise of the FE.

Rob

I was just reading in a Mustang book that the 427 FEs had to be built in a different location, due to the nature of their design. Perhaps Ford decided it wasn't worth the effort, with the 428 and others coming up. I'm just surprised that Ford advertised it in late '67, for the '68 model year. No doubt, the luxury aspect of the Cougars won out for the GT-E.

I also read in an old copy of "Shelby American" that for the '68 Shelby's, too the turn signal switches also went out too soon. I believe that it's the brass contacts on the switch that "fry" due to the high amperage demand of three 1157's at once, instead of one.

These are the round contacts that move from one spot to the other to initiate the blinking.

The '64-'66 T-Bird had a sequential setup, and I wonder how they made the turn signal switch for those Fords (were the brass contacts 'beefier"?). I doubt it, but it would be neat if those switches would fit into a GT/CS.

I want to get this taillight problem solved once and for all for everyone!!

Paul.
p.s. Steve/Robert--would a small bit of solder applied to each socket to the housing fix the grounding problem? (along with a very good wire from the taillight housing to the body in the trunk area?)

aemoo28 · Apr 11, 2009

128 mph on Seattle viaduct

Remember this? I rightfully got slapped all over the place for this immaturity, but I'm admitting I did it in my 2008 GT/CS. Me and the V6 '06 sidekick buddy.

Do a blurb on the Specials that put their dedicated owners in the hospital, find out how many people risk life and limb to put these old cars back together. How many Specials try to roll over their owners, light them on fire, etc.

"Never give up on your Special".

rvrtrash · Apr 11, 2009

PNewitt said:
Hey Steve!

WOW. What great information! Thank you so very much!

Paul.

Yes, it would have been even better if it was correct! This is what I get for trying to do math when I first wake up, and I have to apologize. I did the calculations using all 6 bulbs for both brake and turn signals, but of course the turn signals would only be correct if the emergency flasher were on, not if you only had one side going. The biggest problem is that I put the bulbs in series instead of parallel, so the numbers are all whacked. As I thought about it later, I had an "Oh s**t" moment. Sorry! :embarass: I need to go out and check to see exactly what size wire is used and if there are one or two brake light feeds to give you the right info. On the ground, yes, solder on the socket will give you a better ground. Read my write up in the restoration section on tail light wiring restoration for more info. As for the TS switch, the only problem I've ever had has been the plastic "spring" for the cancelling cam. For an electronics solution, it wouldn't be too difficult to remove the flasher unit and build an electronic one using a power transistor and a 555 timer, which is probably what the people did that make the LED units.

Steve

rvrtrash · Apr 11, 2009

Here's where I am at the moment. First, the wire is actually 16 gauge, which has less resistance over a given distance and will handle higher currents. I re-ran all my calculations using the formulas for parallel circuits (several times) and came up with numbers which were impossible to believe. I checked a spare taillight bucket to make sure the bulbs were parallel and then measured the resistance of the bulbs in my car, from the power terminal of the plug to the ground terminal of the plug. The taillight bulbs are all connected to one wire, parallel, but show about the same resistance as just a single bulb. The turn signal/brake wires are individual on the bucket side of the plug and all showed more than double the resistance of the bulb. OK, now I'm totally confused so I changed the battery in my meter thinking it was low and throwing my readings off. Same thing. I measured the spare bucket again, but my meter leads are 20 years old and cause fluctuation when I'm trying to read tenth of an ohm differences. I'm going to buy new ones when I get back from Oklahoma, but it looks like the harness on the taillight bucket uses resistive wire, both on the supply side and ground side, to give the same net resistance as a single bulb. Each bulb would be dimmer than it would be in a single bulb system, but the net luminence, shining on the lens, would be the same. Sounds crazy I know. It'll be two weeks before I can get new leads and verify, so if someone else can double check, it might help Paul.

Steve

CougarCJ · Apr 12, 2009

Thunderbird sequential tail lights were announced for 1965, but I am not sure if they were standard that year. 1966 for sure.

1968 Shelby Mustang tidbit.
Tilt Steering Column
Found on all cars built after December 8, 1967. Some very early cars do not have tilt columns.
There are different turn signal switches for fixed and tilt columns.

Paul, I did some research for the wiring load issue you brought up. I looked into stop light switches, turn signal switches, and headlamp switches between the Cougar and Mustang. Cougar having the 3 tail lights.

All the same except for the headlamp switch. Not just the vacuum ports either.
In my 1968 Cougar wiring diagram manual it identifies the headlamp switch as having a 15amp breaker built it. That tidbit does not show up anywhere else. Anyone have the Mustang version for comparison?

I know what everybody is thinking, those Cougar headlamp switches have a piggy backed vacuum switch for actuating the hideaway headlights. True, but the 1967 Cougar did not, it used an under hood vacuum solenoid exactly like the 1967 T-Bird. The headlight switch on the 1967 Cougar looks exactly the same as the 1965-68 Mustang switch, but it has a C5GB-11654-A casting number as opposed to the C5ZB-11652-A1 (Motorcraft) found on my GT/CS.

It is my belief that the C5GB-11654-A switch is heavier duty. That part comes from the 1965 Comet/Fairlane parts bin. The Comet has what looks like two tail lights per side.
Left to Right - Motorcraft service replacement headlight switch as found on my GT/CS, 1967 headlight switch as found on my 1967 Cougar GT, 1968 headlight switch as found on my 1968 Cougar.

CougarCJ · Apr 12, 2009

Paul, regarding the FE 427 engines they were not created equally. I only know enough about them to not make any blanket statements. Here is what I do know; 427's came in low risers, medium risers, cammers, side oilers, and top oilers. There may be more, and one or two of those terms could mean the same thing or overlap. The W code 427 found in the 1968 Mercury Cougar GT-E was a hydraulic cam engine.
Towards the end of the Cougar GT-E production, they were receiving the R code 428CJ engines. This may have been the only available engine during the end of the production run.

I personally know the registrars of both the 1968 Cougar GT-E registry and the 1968 XR7-G registry. I can get you into contact with either or both of them.
The XR7-G registrar is named Royce Petersen and he is also a FE expert.
http://www.theclassiccougarnetwork.com/xr7g/
The GT-E registrar is named Jim Pinkerton.
http://www.theclassiccougarnetwork.com/gte/

PNewitt · Apr 12, 2009

Steve...thanks for following through with the goof. Not a problem at all! LOL!

I really appreciate your effort to do this. We're making real progress! Cool!

CJ-- thank you SO MUCH for digging out the diagrams and taking the comparison shots of the headlight switches. I now wonder why Ford didn't spec the HD version from the beginning. They went to a HD flasher then, so I wonder why no HD headlight switch?? I'll look at the original specs sheets for the CS.

I really appreciate all your help. This will make life for everyone much easier with their tailights!

Paul.

PNewitt · Apr 12, 2009

rvrtrash said:
Here's where I am at the moment. First, the wire is actually 16 gauge, which has less resistance over a given distance and will handle higher currents. I re-ran all my calculations using the formulas for parallel circuits (several times) and came up with numbers which were impossible to believe. I checked a spare taillight bucket to make sure the bulbs were parallel and then measured the resistance of the bulbs in my car, from the power terminal of the plug to the ground terminal of the plug. The taillight bulbs are all connected to one wire, parallel, but show about the same resistance as just a single bulb. The turn signal/brake wires are individual on the bucket side of the plug and all showed more than double the resistance of the bulb. OK, now I'm totally confused so I changed the battery in my meter thinking it was low and throwing my readings off. Same thing. I measured the spare bucket again, but my meter leads are 20 years old and cause fluctuation when I'm trying to read tenth of an ohm differences. I'm going to buy new ones when I get back from Oklahoma, but it looks like the harness on the taillight bucket uses resistive wire, both on the supply side and ground side, to give the same net resistance as a single bulb. Each bulb would be dimmer than it would be in a single bulb system, but the net luminence, shining on the lens, would be the same. Sounds crazy I know. It'll be two weeks before I can get new leads and verify, so if someone else can double check, it might help Paul.

Steve

Thanks, Steve for making the effort--and taking the time to do so. Interesting that you found resistance wire in the harness. I have a Ford engineering blueprint for the CS, and will look at what they originally spec'd.

"IF" Ford had this figured out, then our problems might stem just from poor grounding after all these years.

Thanks, Paul.

hotrodgrany · Apr 13, 2009

PNewitt said:
Thanks for the answers, guys. I'll check them all out!

We need to remind ourselves that the Cougar was very close to the Mustang in so many ways. In fact, the CS script on the rear quarters was inspired by the Cougar script in the same spot.

Another question: a. what is the amp draw off of six 1157 blubs. Each for turn signals/brakes, and for the headlight circuit.

b. With those amp values, what would be the defined load rating for the gauge of wiring used in the taillight harness?

My guess is that it's a borderline difference of demand versus load for those taillights.

It's difficult today to get taillights to be as bright as desired, due to old wiring, bad grounds, headlight and turn signal switch failures.

I know that this is technical, but we need to know this in order to make them work as intended (once and for all!)

thanks again,
Paul.

The Mercury Courgar, here is not so great picture of what you are speeking of, Paul Check out the rear side panal here. I may have posted this picture before, but it is our 69 Courgar we stll have but need way to much restoration. may I add it had sequential taillights. But I always loved the headlight that open when you turned them on. By the way it had the steering wheel that would tilt out of your way, Oh the memories this brings back.

CougarCJ · Apr 13, 2009

That looks like a 1969 Cougar Sports Special.

From the picture it looks like it has the Bullet rocker moldings.

hotrodgrany · Apr 13, 2009

aemoo28 said:
Remember this? I rightfully got slapped all over the place for this immaturity, but I'm admitting I did it in my 2008 GT/CS. Me and the V6 '06 sidekick buddy.

Do a blurb on the Specials that put their dedicated owners in the hospital, find out how many people risk life and limb to put these old cars back together. How many Specials try to roll over their owners, light them on fire, etc.

"Never give up on your Special".

I guess I am not the only that loves to drive with a what I call myself a lead foot sometimes and boy it feels so good, that is why they made cruise control for. Yes, Amy, I to had my 07 GT/CS up there to and maybe more, at least once.

hotrodgrany · Apr 13, 2009

CougarCJ said:
That looks like a 1969 Cougar Sports Special.

From the picture it looks like it has the Bullet rocker moldings.

When we ordered this, it was to be, I believe, a XR7 Mercury Courgar

1968 Research Questions For U

PNewitt

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

PNewitt

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

PNewitt

Guest

PNewitt

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

PNewitt

Guest

PNewitt

Guest

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads