Coil mounting bracket for 6S281

[Bob Gaines]

I also found this coil bracket with the miscellaneous parts in 6S281. Does this look correct for my application? I have gone to the time and expense to locate an original date correct in the box FOMOCO coil, I certainly don't want to get the bracket wrong. What say the experts?

I wouldn't use it. The typical bracket is notched on one side only and not both sides like your one in the picture.

[Karguy]

Thanks Bob, Notch on the bottom correct?

[GT350Lad]

I'll get you a photo of the bracket bolt this week Karl. Unless I get beaten to it 

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob, Notch on the bottom correct?

Please reread reply #9 . The brackets are typically painted black until sometime in 67 when they transitioned to PO finish.

[J_Speegle]

Noticed that Bob Manuals book suggest that he found both styles ( in fact he included the two styles with the holes in the brackets also) in his book.

No mention of the finishes and no mention of the bracket that I could find for in the 67 section

Respectfully have not found all original coil clamps/brackets painted on 66 289's  but that is just my observations. Bracket supplier and in turn finish should be an engine plant function so not car assembly plant specific

[Bob Gaines]

Noticed that Bob Manuals book suggest that he found both styles ( in fact he included the two styles with the holes in the brackets also) in his book.

No mention of the finishes and no mention of the bracket that I could find for in the 67 section

Respectfully have not found all original coil clamps/brackets painted on 66 289's  but that is just my observations. Bracket supplier and in turn finish should be an engine plant function so not car assembly plant specific

Jeff, I am not sure why the criticism for my post ? The reason why I suggested that Karguy reread reply #9 was because I referenced that Bob Mannel book and how he suggested both style brackets were used and my own opinion of why which the Mannel book does not cover. I was hoping to short cut repeating that explanation by suggesting reread reply #9 but apparently I was unsuccessful since I am having to repeat it again for you. I also referenced the bracket with hole and its other observed usages in my other post (credited to Mannel) which you apparently didn't see otherwise you would not need to mention it as if I didn't.  You misquoted me given I was the only one mentioning finish, I did not write "ALL" as you wrote.  I did write that the painted bracket (65/66) was typical which does not rule out the occasional unpainted which is less typical. I do have my own observations from 30 +years of research/observation, the predominate change over in 67 is one of those observations which Mannel did not cover in his book. I reference information from Mannels book but when I do give him credit for such. Respectfully I hope I have explained why I wondered about your criticism to my posts given my pointing out the content that answer the difficulties you have with them. You apparently didn't read them regardless of if you agree with my observations or not. Sorry for the long reply but it bothered me enough to write.

[J_Speegle]

Sorry you saw my post as critical of yours – was not the intent. Reading the first two lines I simple wrote that I had read/noticed the same as you. I could have added (didn't want to edit it now since you had taken umbrage with the post) I found it interesting that he did not include finishes and left the subject out in the 67 sections.
As for the last sentence I guess I've seen more of the phosphate in comparison to the painted brackets and simple wanted to offer that opinion in a respectful way.

Guess either or both of us could have chosen to do this in a PM and will likely choose that path next time so that the written word and my poor writing skills does not repeat in sort of misunderstanding. Time to get some sleep. 

[gt350hr]

     I see a group hug coming! Seriously here is another example of the "challenge" this medium presents. If these two LONG TIME friends were talking in person , there would be no confusion as to intent in the exchange I guarantee you.

[Bob Gaines]

Sorry you saw my post as critical of yours – was not the intent. Reading the first two lines I simple wrote that I had read/noticed the same as you. I could have added (didn't want to edit it now since you had taken umbrage with the post) I found it interesting that he did not include finishes and left the subject out in the 67 sections.
As for the last sentence I guess I've seen more of the phosphate in comparison to the painted brackets and simple wanted to offer that opinion in a respectful way.

Guess either or both of us could have chosen to do this in a PM and will likely choose that path next time so that the written word and my poor writing skills does not repeat in sort of misunderstanding. Time to get some sleep.

I Appreciate the reply .Yes PM's would be better. It's all good.

[CharlesTurner]

When an original coil with the bump is installed in an indexed bracket, on a 65 alternator V8, the coil will sit too low and does match period photos we have.

It was important for coils with the bump and indexed brackets when installed on the intake of generator V8 Mustangs (and probably other Fords). 

[Dan Case]

When an original coil with the bump is installed in an indexed bracket, on a 65 alternator V8, the coil will sit too low and does match period photos we have.

It was important for coils with the bump and indexed brackets when installed on the intake of generator V8 Mustangs (and probably other Fords).

Here's a TYPICAL style of installation for 1963-64 Fairlanes with generator and 1963-65 Cobras with either generator (early) or alternator (late).

[Rocket]

Looked at motor for 6S550, and it does not have the index hole, and has the cut off corner at the bottom. No reason that it's not the original that came on the car.   Ron

[Karguy]

Thank you Ron, greatly appreciate the information!