Correct clutch fork 1967 small block

[imming1965]

Okay, I have read an old post about this but I'm still confused on this part. Getting ready to assembly drive train assembly and put back in 1376 and these are my choices of different clutch forks. I was told by old post and by a ford parts guy that the 1967 was a unique one year part and was 12 inches long and was used on 289 and 390 with small bearing.
    I'm not sure if that info is correct but I sure could use someone that knows which one is correct. It seems to me that the 12inch one might be to long for a mustang. Please if you know I could use some help so i dont put wrong one in.
   I'm pretty sure all three will work and I'm sure I have never used the 12 inch one before this is why I'm confused....thanks

[imming1965]

here is a picture of 1453
     please ignore the mistakes and wrong items on bottom it was the first 67 i did and was a long time ago. it has been redone and made correct from this pictures but this one came and had the snake fange clutch fork in it also. I'm  not saying it wasnt changed just using as reference. i would think the longer 12 inch fork would make rod not be in alignment and at a wierd angle.

[430dragpack]

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

[Bob Gaines]

Okay, I have read an old post about this but I'm still confused on this part. Getting ready to assembly drive train assembly and put back in 1376 and these are my choices of different clutch forks. I was told by old post and by a ford parts guy that the 1967 was a unique one year part and was 12 inches long and was used on 289 and 390 with small bearing.
    I'm not sure if that info is correct but I sure could use someone that knows which one is correct. It seems to me that the 12inch one might be to long for a mustang. Please if you know I could use some help so i dont put wrong one in.
   I'm pretty sure all three will work and I'm sure I have never used the 12 inch one before this is why I'm confused....thanks

Number 3 cut off end fork looks right.

[430dragpack]

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.

[Bossbill]

There is so much bad data on the clutch fork. And some of it comes from previous posts here.
The biggest issue is that 60-68 MPC lists a C7ZZ-7515-D for the 67 F(Special).
This fork is 12" long. I bought it based on multiple recommendations, including the one from the vendor who sold it to me -- based on the MPC.

I also have a C5OE-7515-B. This is the snake tongue version many say is a service replacement. It was on my car (untouched for over 35 years) and on a friends car that predates that date by another dozen years. But the validity of the C5OE-B is not the question. It's the 12" long C7ZZ-D. (I believe this to be a C2 big block fork) The C3 is almost the same and I can't differentiate via pictures).

I took out a previously running 66 289 and mounted the following parts on that:
-Left and right C3/C4 Hipo exhaust manifolds
-10.5 Clutch left in place
-Correct 67 bellhousing
-Correct for 67 HiPo (See Gregory's book pg 67) Z bar
-New, SD Exhaust H pipe
-An 8 1/4" threaded rod to replace the push rod which I can't find at the moment
-Threaded stud block for push rod
-Two forks -- the 12" and the snake tongue.

That setup is in the pictures.

Pic 1-- The 60-68 MPC
Pic 2-- The rig
Pic 3-- View of how the Z-bar was fitted and how the snake tongue fork aligns with the push rod. I have other views of this including the horizontal as viewed from the frame rail.
Pic 4 -- View of the direction the push rod goes with 12" installed
Pic 5 -- Pic of how the threaded stud block looks with 12" installed
Pic 6 -- H pipe removed showing the extreme angle of the 12".
Pic 7 -- 12" on top and various 65-67 289 clutch forks underneath

So, the MPC is wrong. The 12" simply cannot work. However I have yet to see a pic of an unmolested, original fork on an original car in order to settle on what the end looks like.

[Bossbill]

Next set of pics 5-7

[430dragpack]

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.

[Bossbill]

The "C7ZZ-D" fork is the top one in my last pic. It appears identical to the version imming1965 posted in his original post.

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.

[430dragpack]

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.

[Bossbill]

Here is a shot of a friend's fork (serial in the 3000s) that he bought in 79.
When we did the engine a few years later I took this pic.
It shows the snake tongue version. (I understand we can't verify the car was stock at that time)

Thanks for the pic of a real C7ZZ-D as it's definitely only for a BB car.