1967 starter details

[imming1965]

If you need a C3 nose cone, I have some extras.
Chris

p/m about nose

[430dragpack]

If you need a C3 nose cone, I have some extras.
Chris

p/m about nose

Got it.  Upon further inspection of your starter, it appears to be a C7AF-C which is not correct for a small block, but rather a big block(and has the wrong nose for that).  You need a die stamped C7AF-B, dated appropriately, or possibly an earlier ink stamped, C4OF-A or C4ZF-A, others with known original ink stamped starters will hopefully jump in, just not sure of the time frame of the switch.  And since 1376 was completed on April 12th of '67, there's a good chance it could be either ink or die stamped. The Registry also has noted "All original, un-restored", so if it had an original ink stamped starter on it and it has worn off, some may assume it isn't the original because there isn't any part number.

[Bob Gaines]

If you need a C3 nose cone, I have some extras.
Chris

p/m about nose

Got it.  Upon further inspection of your starter, it appears to be a C7AF-C which is not correct for a small block, but rather a big block(and has the wrong nose for that).  You need a die stamped C7AF-B, dated appropriately, or possibly an earlier ink stamped, C4OF-A or C4ZF-A, others with known original ink stamped starters will hopefully jump in, just not sure of the time frame of the switch.  And since 1376 was completed on April 12th of '67, there's a good chance it could be either ink or die stamped. The Registry also has noted "All original, un-restored", so if it had an original ink stamped starter on it and it has worn off, some may assume it isn't the original because there isn't any part number.

Most likely will have a ink stamped version.

[George Schalk]

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. 

[430dragpack]

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. 

[George Schalk]

These are pics of a second n.o.s. starter that was manufactured in 1969.  This one has a die stamp and no ink stamp.  The die stamp is "C7AF-11001-B" with a date of "9C20B".  This one also has a white gasket under the metal band, a yellow paint mark and the nose has a part #D0OF-11131-A.  Again, the black paint is faded as it gets close to the seat collar of the nose.  This starter would be to late for a '67 car, but very similar paint details. 

The yellow paint mark does not mean all starters should have this marking.  I have another n.o.s. starter identical to this one with a date of "9F14B" that does not have the yellow paint mark on it.

[George Schalk]

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.

[430dragpack]

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.

[Bob Gaines]

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.

Although a later version and not technically correct the D0OF nose cone in this case on the second starter would pass most scrutiny once installed. What is seen on the outside once installed is what gives the look that is expected .

[tgilliam]

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

[Bob Gaines]

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.

[430dragpack]

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.

[430dragpack]

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.

[Bob Gaines]

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.

Yes ,nothing I have seen leads me to believe that the BB and SB starters transitioned from the ink stamp to metal stamp differently.

[J_Speegle]

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.

We just make stamps and restamp them;) One of the challenges in making the stamp is that very few if any of the original stampings is a complete one as each one is often missing a corner, section or detail. And service replacements (the source for many reproduction parts) are stamped differently than assembly line

Agree with Bob that the ink/paint stamped versions were used at the same time the plant was receive the metal stamped ones for a while. Might have been a case where one supplying plant was still marking them older way and another the newer way. Do have records of 68 San Jose cars being assembled with the ink/paint stamped versions and the latest date found I have is one dated 7L  November 1967 so at least into mid product.

Again don't take that as an indicator that only that version was used/installed during later 67 and earlier 68 San Jose production