'65 Shock/Strut Mount LH and RH Part Numbers???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Joe R.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • March 1, 2002
    • 1350

    #16
    Re: IMO, the orginal (Non-F40/41) were angled

    Here is the second photo from Wayne Midkoff. This shows a subtle characteristic of the original shock mounts that is not duplicated in some of the reproduction mounts. If you look closely, you can see that the tops of these two mounts angle away from each other.

    The effect is that the centerline of the shaft that goes through the strut rod does not intersect the centerline of the shaft that goes through the shock. The amount of the offset is small.




    Attached Files

    Comment

    • Joe R.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • March 1, 2002
      • 1350

      #17
      Re: '65 Shock/Strut Mount LH and RH Part Numbers??

      Hi Joe:

      Are you sure you didn't mean the other way around when you referred to the one on the top and the one on the bottom in the ebay photo that Rob Axel mentioned? My 3820929 and 3820930 look like the one on the top. So do Wayne Midkiff's, which appear in a photo that I just posted for him.

      Comment

      • Rob A.
        Expired
        • December 1, 1991
        • 50

        #18
        Re: IMO, the orginal (Non-F40/41) were angled

        Wayne,

        Looks like you and I were referring to different angles..looking from the top and looking from the side.

        Comment

        • Joe L.
          Beyond Control Poster
          • February 1, 1988
          • 42936

          #19
          Re: '65 Shock/Strut Mount LH and RH Part Numbers??

          Joe-----

          Yes, I reversed it (haste makes waste).
          In Appreciation of John Hinckley

          Comment

          • James W.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • December 1, 1990
            • 2529

            #20
            Re: '65 Shock/Strut Mount LH and RH Part Numbers??

            Thanks to all of you who posted descriptions and photos. The shock mounts that I am referring to are off of an original, low mileage 1965, 396 c.i. convertible with a standard suspension, the car has never been apart before now. The photos from Wayne are exactly what I have. As I sit here typing this, I'm looking at a pair of reproductions that have no part numbers cast into them at all and have none of the curves as seen in the orginals, but they are marked with a sticker for left and right sides. The owner of the car that I am helping to restore had bought these reproductions because in removing the originals, he had done damage to the threaded ends and thought they were un-repairable. I told him that I was not inclined to put a reproduction part on this car unless all other avenues had been exhausted. I repaired the threads and they are good to go back on the car. I have since banned him from removing anything from the car if it involves the use of a BFH and/or a vice-grips.

            Thanks again to Joe, Mike, Wayne, Jon and anyone else who responded. I got a lot more info than I needed, but I learned something new, and that's always a positive in my book.

            THANKS GUYS!

            James West
            Omaha, NE.

            Comment

            Working...
            Searching...Please wait.
            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
            An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
            There are no results that meet this criteria.
            Search Result for "|||"