65 Pitman and Idler arms on Ebay.

[J_Speegle]

Looked through some of my pictures and came up with these two versions. One with Ford oval and hardness test looking divot mid way on the top surface (once mounted) of the arm. On the version without the oval the casting numbers are not as crisp and nice as the oval version unless they have been exposed to heavy rust.
At least the upper picture with the oval appears to have Ford printed in the oval





And another pair. In the top oval example you can make out pretty clearly a capital F in a circle to the right of the engineering number

[Bob Gaines]

Looked through some of my pictures and came up with these two versions. One with Ford oval and hardness test looking divot mid way on the top surface (once mounted) of the arm. On the version without the oval the casting numbers are not as crisp and nice as the oval version unless they have been exposed to heavy rust.





And another pair. In the top oval example you can make out pretty clearly a capital F in a circle to the right of the engineering number

I would submit that the picture without the Ford trademark is a aftermarket version .

[J_Speegle]

When did reproduction first become available? The lower version has at least been found on one car that was in and is in storage since 73. Hard to believe there was a market or need from reproduction then given the availability of NOS at the time  Just reporting

[J_Speegle]

For pitman arms I found three different versions. Appears that these represent different vendors that supplied them to Ford/Shelby

Top - Engineering number - oval -  large identifier
Middle - Engineering number - oval - small circle with possible an 8 or B inside. Similar to the pattern shown in one of the idler arms above
Bottom - Looks like possible a small oval - engineering number - rest is not visible

[s2ms]

Using Jeff's idler arm photos as a reference, IMO the top arms are what we're discussing as potentially being repops, the XRR engineering numbers are more pronounced and the Ford trademark logo is next to the engineering number, both on the bottom of the arm. The arm I bought from Branda in 1995 is identical to the arm in Jeff's top photo, I recall seeing these in the Branda catalog as early as ~1987.  I believe the bottom arms in Jeff's photos are original and match the arm shown below which is a later 66 original arm. The XRR numbers are not nearly as crisp and the trademark logo, in this case a block FoMoCo, is on the opposite side, on top of the arm. From what I've observed 65 arms have an oval FoMoCo logo and 66's have the block FoMoCo, not sure exactly when the change occurred or how gradual it was.

[J_Speegle]

Will look to see if I have  or can get a clear picture of the lower version from the other side to see if those have the square FoMoCo design. One of those lower examples is from a 66 in the low "teens". Believe the other was loose

When I have time I'll go through the individual car pictures and see if there are more

[Bob Gaines]

When did reproduction first become available? The lower version has at least been found on one car that was in and is in storage since 73. Hard to believe there was a market or need from reproduction then given the availability of NOS at the time  Just reporting

It has been my observation that if a part that typically carried a Ford trademark does did not have the trade mark that it is more likely to be a repro then genuine Ford. MFG's did not want the litigation that bootleg Ford parts carried plus a Ford marked part was not a issue that many cared about until recent years. The many un marked reproduction parts compared to their genuine counter part then and now support that observation.  It wasn't until the last decade or so did Ford Licensing make it practical for small run parts to carry the trade mark. It was at least mid to later 70's when Branda offered a 65/66 GT350 idler and pitman set at least in the mid to later 70's when a family member order a set from Branda for his car . I helped install them.  I first ordered a set myself in the late 70's early 80's.  I can't say if they were Ford or repro because that trademark aspect was not relevant to me  at that time. I do know that Branda sold Idler pitman arm sets without proper markings and Ford trademarks at some point because I have bought them in the late 80's early 90's and was aware. I can't comment on the appearance of current offerings as it has been 15 -20 years since I have sourced any from Branda .     

[texas swede]

As I stated above, one way to separate a repo idler arm from an original is the number on the rubber seal.
Repo D7.... and original C4....
Texas Swede

[texas swede]

Got an answer back via Ebay from JD Larson where he said he didn't agree with my comments and consequently won't change
the auction. He never commented on the D7 versa C4 on the rubber seal.
Texas Swede

[J_Speegle]

As I stated above, one way to separate a repo idler arm from an original is the number on the rubber seal.
Repo D7.... and original C4....
Texas Swede

The only challenge with the seal is that it's not connected to the idler arm in a permanent  way and could always be swapped out. Its helpful but not determinate IMHO. Agree that that one detail does make up the complete assemble as does the bracket and other hardware

[texas swede]

I agree Jeff, but all repo idler arms I have seen and owned have had the D7 seal and all originals have the C4.
A person paying almost $1000 for a repo set makes me sad.
Texas Swede

[s2ms]

Got curious and checked the Branda idler arm I bought in 1995, the seal does have "D7DC-3A196-AA" molded into it. Interesting that the arm JD Larson was selling on ebay, which is now sold, has a seal marked "ZA-3A196-A", so possibly that has a C4ZA-3A196-A seal where the C4 is very faint?

Also, the OE idler arm photo I posted in reply #19 has a seal with no numbers at all, I said it was from a later 66, but checked my notes and it's actually off a car in the 300's, but is identical to the original arm for 6S1757.

[J_Speegle]

Another example of the weak casting of the divot version. Not the results of rusting. Square FoMoCo and divot or test mark highlighted. Interesting that this one has the divot or test mark on the top side of the arm with the Fomoco square casting

No number on the boot at the center link end. Must have been changed out when they added somewhat popular Moog greasable (s?) ball bearing kit when the car was fairly new. That kit is shown installed in the lower right in the picture below



Not to get too far off thread but here is a picture of the kit from a current Ebay auction/ Just in case someone runs across one fo these and doesn't know what it is

[KR500]

Just a note the " divot " is from a Brinell hardness test. You see them on crank shafts flywheels and other parts and not just in the automotive industry.

Rodney

[J_Speegle]

Just a note the " divot " is from a Brinell hardness test. You see them on crank shafts flywheels and other parts and not just in the automotive industry.

Rodney

That is what I thought also but the surfaces (inside it) were not as smooth as some others I have. Maybe because they didn't grind the spot before they tested the spot like other parts like spindle. Did forget the name of the test - thanks