Subject: [Tigers] Clutch fork.... Still....

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:22:54 -0400

Still looking for information on the clutch fork for the 5 bolt bell
housing.  I need more responses to dimensions of the fork as per drawing
(email me for drawing if you can help).  I haven't heard back from anyone as
to what the clearance is from the end of the fork arc to any obstruction
like body parts or exhaust.   So far, I might try purchasing a 10-1/2" clip
style fork and replacing the clip with the wire spring retainer setup.  Any
input would be helpful.  Thanks to the few that have sent the requested
info. 
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked]

---

From: David or Gary <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:38:49 GMT FILETIME=[D0471790:01CE2357]

I went through all my parts and unfortunately I don't have a MK1 Tiger
clutch arm/fork Ford number C3AZ-7515-A. I do have a couple of later
arms which may help people locate a suitable length arm. I also checked
on what clutch arms are shown in the Ford Factory Master Parts books.
Here is what the Ford parts book shows: C3AZ-7515-A 10" (same as Rootes
MK1 Tiger), C5OZ-7515-A (MKII Tiger 289) this number is NOT in the Ford
Parts book (mis-print by Rootes?),  for the 1965 289 (6 bolt
bellhousing) Ford shows C5OZ-7515-B  9 1/4"  up to date 2/15/68,
then for 2/15/68 up they show C8OZ-7515-B 10 1/2". I have examples of
the C5OZ-7515-B and C8OZ-7515-B (pictures below) They are almost
identical except for how they mount on the pivot inside the bellhousing
and the tip. The (C5) 1965 (6 bolt) mounts inside the bellhousing with
the same round wire clip as the MK1 Tiger, the (C8) 1968 mounts with a
flat spring clip.
Now the actual measurements of these clutch fork arms don't match what
Ford has listed in their parts book, I don't know how Ford measured
them, overall length, from the fork end to the pivot, or?  The C5OZ-B
is shown as 9 1/4", the only actual measurement which matches is from
the tip of the fork to the center of the round clutch rod dimple, but
the C8OZ is shown as 10 1/2" and this arm is almost the same as the
C5OZ, the whole arm on the C8OZ is 10 3/4".
----------------
Here is what Ford shows, and my measured actual lengths:
-
C3AZ-7515-A (MK1 Tiger) - Ford 10", actual overall, or tip of the fork
to the center of the round clutch rod dimple?
-
C5OZ-7515-A (MKII) not in Ford book, Tiger owners report 9 1/4"
(measured where?).
-
C5OZ-7515-B - Ford 9 1/4", actual 9 1/4" tip of the fork to the center
of the round clutch rod dimple, and 10 1/2" overall.
-
C8OZ-7515-B - Ford 10 1/2", actual 9 1/4" tip of the fork to the center
of the round clutch rod dimple, and 10 3/4" overall.
---
I think the measurement should be from the tip of the fork to the center
of the round clutch rod dimple, but the Ford C5OZ-7515-B and C8OZ-7515-B
measurements don't match (Ford mistake?).
----------------
So, is the (MKI) C3AZ-7515-A Ford 10" actually 9 1/4" or 10 1/2" or
?,  and close enough to the 6 bolt non-Tiger C5OZ-7515-B  9 1/4".
Since the Ford parts book measurements don't match all actual
measurements, I think the Ford 6 bolt 9 1/4" arm C5OZ-7515-B should also
work on the MKI.
Also is the Tiger Parts book 6 bolt MKII arm C5OZ-7515-A a misprint, and
is it actually a C5OZ-7515-B? or is it something special?
Boy is this confusing :)
---------
For John all the arm measurements. L= 10 1/2, IN= 1 11/16, CC= 2 3/8,
SE= 4 1/16, SD= 5 1/8, SP=?

David Franchi

Rear view 68 at top 65 bottom.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1283/13544377/24318096/405952400.jpg

Front view 68 at top 65 bottom.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1283/13544377/24318096/405952401.jpg

65 arm on top of the 68
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1283/13544377/24318096/405952402.jpg

65 on top of the 68 close-up of the tip
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1283/13544377/24318096/405952403.jpg

Side View
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1283/13544377/24318096/405952404.jpg
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

---

From: " Ron Fraser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:50:40 -0400

David
	Excellent work!
Maybe Gene still has his C3AZ clutch fork handy and can measure from the
fork tip to the center of the clutch rod dimple.

Ron Fraser

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of David or Gary
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Clutch fork.... Still....

I went through all my parts and unfortunately I don't have a MK1 Tiger
clutch arm/fork Ford number C3AZ-7515-A. I do have a couple of later arms
which may help people locate a suitable length arm. I also checked on what
clutch arms are shown in the Ford Factory Master Parts books. Here is what
the Ford parts book shows: C3AZ-7515-A 10" (same as Rootes MK1 Tiger),
C5OZ-7515-A (MKII Tiger 289) this number is NOT in the Ford Parts book
(mis-print by Rootes?),  for the 1965 289 (6 bolt
bellhousing) Ford shows C5OZ-7515-B  9 1/4"  up to date 2/15/68, then for
2/15/68 up they show C8OZ-7515-B 10 1/2". I have examples of the C5OZ-7515-B
and C8OZ-7515-B (pictures below) They are almost identical except for how
they mount on the pivot inside the bellhousing and the tip. The (C5) 1965 (6
bolt) mounts inside the bellhousing with the same round wire clip as the MK1
Tiger, the (C8) 1968 mounts with a flat spring clip. Now the actual
measurements of these clutch fork arms don't match what Ford has listed in
their parts book, I don't know how Ford measured them, overall length, from
the fork end to the pivot, or?  The C5OZ-B is shown as 9 1/4", the only
actual measurement which matches is from the tip of the fork to the center
of the round clutch rod dimple, but the C8OZ is shown as 10 1/2" and this
arm is almost the same as the C5OZ, the whole arm on the C8OZ is 10 3/4".
----------------
Here is what Ford shows, and my measured actual lengths:
-
C3AZ-7515-A (MK1 Tiger) - Ford 10", actual overall, or tip of the fork to
the center of the round clutch rod dimple?
-
C5OZ-7515-A (MKII) not in Ford book, Tiger owners report 9 1/4" (measured
where?).
-
C5OZ-7515-B - Ford 9 1/4", actual 9 1/4" tip of the fork to the center of
the round clutch rod dimple, and 10 1/2" overall.
-
C8OZ-7515-B - Ford 10 1/2", actual 9 1/4" tip of the fork to the center of
the round clutch rod dimple, and 10 3/4" overall.
---
I think the measurement should be from the tip of the fork to the center of
the round clutch rod dimple, but the Ford C5OZ-7515-B and C8OZ-7515-B
measurements don't match (Ford mistake?).
----------------
So, is the (MKI) C3AZ-7515-A Ford 10" actually 9 1/4" or 10 1/2" or ?,  and
close enough to the 6 bolt non-Tiger C5OZ-7515-B  9 1/4". Since the Ford
parts book measurements don't match all actual measurements, I think the
Ford 6 bolt 9 1/4" arm C5OZ-7515-B should also work on the MKI. Also is the
Tiger Parts book 6 bolt MKII arm C5OZ-7515-A a misprint, and is it actually
a C5OZ-7515-B? or is it something special? Boy is this confusing :)
---------
For John all the arm measurements. L= 10 1/2, IN= 1 11/16, CC= 2 3/8, SE= 4
1/16, SD= 5 1/8, SP=?

David Franchi

65 arm on top of the 68

Side View

[email-masked]

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked]

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6177 - Release Date: 03/15/13
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:19:09 -0400 (EDT)

Ron,
I don't have a manual handy, but maybe you can explain the reason behind a  
single change in digits of a Ford part number.  I know, for example, that  
one digit represents the application of the part.  As I understand it, if a  
part is changed the number will change, but the new part might still work 
on the  old application.
 
In the list that Dave presented, one or two of the part #'s changed by one  
digit. Could we have something similar with the Tiger clutch fork.  In  
other words, is a there a number that is close that will work on the  Tiger.
Mark L

In a message dated 3/17/2013 7:51:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email-masked] writes:

David
Excellent work!

Ron Fraser

-----Original  Message-----

2/15/68 up they show C8OZ-7515-B 10 1/2". I have examples  of the 
C5OZ-7515-B
they mount on the pivot inside the bellhousing and  the tip. The (C5) 1965 
(6
bolt) mounts inside the bellhousing with the same  round wire clip as the 
MK1
of

David Franchi

65  arm on top of the  68

Side  View

[email-masked]

Archive:  http://www.team.net/archive
Forums:  http://www.team.net/forums
Unsubscribe:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked]

-----

[email-masked]

Archive:  http://www.team.net/archive
Forums:  http://www.team.net/forums
Unsubscribe:  http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

---

From: " Ron Fraser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:56:27 -0400

Mark
    Ford could change the a part number several ways.

The year code could change - C3 = 1963, C5 = 1965, C8 = 1968.
Generally a year code change means the part was updated somehow but I'm
can't say for sure.
Many Ford parts had the year code change for the 6 bolt engine change over.

The 3rd digit is the division where the part was first designed - A = full
size Ford, O = Fairlane, T = Truck, Z = Mustang
This digit can easily change.

The body of the number for any part will not change - 7515 = clutch fork all
across Ford.

The last letter in the number is the revision level - A,B,C to Z.

The correct Ford Parts Manual will show if an older part has been updated to
a newer part number.
This is similar to the Rootes Parts List that show superseded part numbers.

I believe David Franchi has that kind of Manual and it is not showing a
direct replacement part for the Tiger Clutch fork.

Ron Fraser

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:19 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Clutch fork.... Still....

Ron,
I don't have a manual handy, but maybe you can explain the reason behind a
single change in digits of a Ford part number.  I know, for example, that
one digit represents the application of the part.  As I understand it, if a
part is changed the number will change, but the new part might still work on
the old application.

In the list that Dave presented, one or two of the part #'s changed by one
digit. Could we have something similar with the Tiger clutch fork.  In other
words, is a there a number that is close that will work on the Tiger.
Mark L
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:30:41 +0000 (UTC)

Hi All, 

The original clutch fork is not a particularly precise stamping. I measure 9.47 inches from one fork tip to the center of the dimple. The distance from the other fork tip is 9.53 inches. One could speculate that the distance is/should be 9.5 inches along the centerline of the fork to the midpoint between the tips. 

BTW, the fork does not have any part number on it. 

Gene 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Fraser" <[email-masked]> 
To: "David or Gary" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
Cc: "john procida" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:50:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Clutch fork.... Still.... 

David 
Excellent work! 

Ron Fraser 

-----Original Message----- 

David Franchi 

65 arm on top of the 68 

Side View 

[email-masked] 

----- 

[email-masked] 

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive 
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked] 
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]