Battery OK decal detail?

[rockhouse66]

Jeff, if you are asking if the yellow car is a KR, I really don't recall for sure. I usually hang onto CJ stuff though, so it could have been a KR which would explain why that is the only photo I kept. I'm having enough trouble with the price of CJ stuff without being tempted by any Shelbys.

[Jeff_Speegle]

Should be 8T03R210945-3818

Reported to be a Special order paint car with 65K original miles. But a good part or all has been restored.

[tlea]

After asking around I have some more data though I can't confirm/deny much of it.
Most think the blue print were on earlier (than Mustang) Fords like 60-63. Some have suggested they made it to some 64.5 cars.
NJ stamps are as Jeff suggested reguarding date and inspector having simple black stamp like a common date stamper, initials only for inspector. Most think sp. gravity readings were in the reading line (sidebar, 1260 or 1.26 is considered fully charged or 1.26 times the weight of plain water)
CJ eqipped cars had no decals

[Jeff_Speegle]

Don't know who you spoke to but no decals on CJ cars does not make any sense. These cars did not need the typical/normal/required checks as all other cars?

Not buying that off handed

[tlea]

Don't know who you spoke to but no decals on CJ cars does not make any sense. These cars did not need the typical/normal/required checks as all other cars?

Very reliable source, although as we all know no one knows everything. As a matter of fact typically the more "experts" I listen to, the more variations I hear :: As far as why I can't say and I agree it doesn't make sense but his claims is on unrestored cars and dozens of original photos from era, he's never seen one.
Tim
ps: He might jump in here and give his perspective as well

[tlea]

CJ eqipped cars had no decals

My mistake, he was talking about the "Caution Fan" decals :naive:

[Jeff_Speegle]

All of us are or should be learning. If "his/her" reference is to NJ only CJ's I have to admit that I do not asee as many of these as other examples. Just wanted to offer a reflection of how it sounds. And its always difficult to prove a negative when so many things happen over the years.

I would offer that pictures of the period are often misleading. Preproduction, magazine and adverterizing photos often include or exclude details that were different from production cars. Who knew we would care after all these years to these little details

As for your 1.26 reference have you seen any hydrometers made for the auto industry made showing that. I only remember one of the period showing the 1260 style readings

[tlea]

As for your 1.26 reference have you seen any hydrometers made for the auto industry made showing that. I only remember one of the period showing the 1260 style readings

Actually I was not referring to the hydrometer but the basis for the readings on the tag like the one Jim showed a picture of. The specific weight of a container of fully charged battery acid is 1.26 times the weight of water. In other words a 1# container of water(distilled) would weigh 1.26#'s if exchanged for an equally sized container of battery acid. Being a mechanic back in the late 60's & 70's (I now build houses) I am very familiar with the old hydrometers. Modern mechanics wouldn't have a clue what one is. I'm not sure why the scale said 1260 instead of 1.26 but my guess would be our American resistance to the metric system which the science community used to measure specific gravity.
I agree with period photos. Although they can be a valuable reference they aren't always accurate. If you look @ the Ford press release photo of my 68 GT 500 you will see 67 style hood pins instead of the twist pins and 10 spokes which came on no more than 3 cars from AO Smith. And then you read the literature and you wonder where the 427's and supercharged 302's are.....
ps: you know the claimant of the no fan decal statement but I'll never tell

Not a '68, but here's a picture of an unrestored battery ok decal from a June/July '65 Dearborn-built coupe.

You can see the charge reading of '1250', the date is stamped in the format 'JUL 9, 1965' and the inspector mark is actually a '12' punched through the paper.

Photograph, compliments of Mike Murray.

[Jeff_Speegle]

"ps: you know the claimant of the no fan decal statement but I'll never tell "

I'm sure I do.... I've got it narowed down to 2 people
Not a problem I'm sure they were kind in their concern and comments

[POP428]

Isn't that a 68,5 rev limiter to the left of shot

http://www.yorkiepup.com/yorkiepupfeature2.html

[scottn63]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Speegle

There is an on going discussion if each car was tested and recieved the decal but currently I'm lead to believe all did.

For NJ the only original example is from a 68 -It shows that the date and the inspector markings are made with simple block letter stamp (date used the standard date stamp machine that was used everywhere at that time and the name of the inspector- Initials- was about the same size and font) all in black ink. The charge was only marked as OK in this example unlike the charge reading that was recorded at the other plants.

Also of not is that that sticker wa that it was one of the white with blue rather than the white with black we typically see at San Jose

Hope this helps

Jeff , any chance you have a photo of the 68 NJ? Were the Initials 2 or 3 letters? What was the format of the date? DD-MON-YYYY?

[carlite65]

reach jeff over here now. ConcoursMustang Forums - Index