• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PIT MAN ARM RUBBER SEAL
#11
After looking back at this and checking through my junk box, I was unable to find the replacement seal I bought. I know it's not on the car because the Rare Parts pitman arm I bought, would not accept the rubber seal. It just slipped off the casting, nothing for it to fit to. These arms are supplied with a felt ring that I guess is supposed to replace the rubber seal. This felt seal has been in the car now for 3 years and seems to be doing the job. I will be checking that more closely in Spring because I'm going to replace the PS box for the one I just rebuilt and posted about recently.
I also checked Rear Counter.com for the part numbers as well as Green Sales and Dennis Carpenter for NOS parts, but nothing turned up, zilch!
I think that the rubber seals that are available, part # 3A352-1A from NPD would work on an NOS pitman arm, but on an aftermarket one, the casting may need to be carefully ground or trimmed so it fits like in the pictures posted elsewhere in this thread. (Rackerm's picture)
Hope that helps,
Geoff.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
#12
Geoff, the C4ZA-3A196-A is an engineering number and not a Ford part number. Ford never released that part for service so there was never an actual part number. So part number searches on NOS Parts, Green Sales, etc are probably not going to show anything. The C4ZA indicates a part designed in 1964 when the Mustang first entered production. So the reason no two seals seam to fit the same is the repro folks are producing these seals with no blueprints or dimensions from Ford.  
Besides, you know how concerned the repo people are about producing parts for us that actually fit!!

Steve

No Officer...I really don't know how fast I was going, my speedometer stopped at 140!
  Reply
#13
The new seal looks different because it hasn't been compressed and worn between the pitman arm and center link.

Here is a cheap and effective fix, and better than the Rare Parts piece of (crap) felt.
https://www.instructables.com/id/Poor-ma...oint-boot/



“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
--Albert Einstein
[+] 1 user Likes Don C's post
  Reply
#14
(01-15-2019, 02:02 PM)Don C Wrote: The new seal looks different because it hasn't been compressed and worn between the pitman arm and center link.

Here is a cheap and effective fix, and better than the Rare Parts piece of (crap) felt.
https://www.instructables.com/id/Poor-ma...oint-boot/

 Hmmm! that sounds like it's worth investigating. Good find.
Geoff.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
#15
(01-15-2019, 12:32 PM)secluff Wrote: Geoff, the C4ZA-3A196-A is an engineering number and not a Ford part number. Ford never released that part for service so there was never an actual part number. So part number searches on NOS Parts, Green Sales, etc are probably not going to show anything. The C4ZA indicates a part designed in 1964 when the Mustang first entered production. So the reason no two seals seam to fit the same is the repro folks are producing these seals with no blueprints or dimensions from Ford.  
Besides, you know how concerned the repo people are about producing parts for us that actually fit!!

 Steve, That might explain it why it did not show up. Other engineering numbers do relate to service parts, like the PS inlet & outlet brass fitting I was looking for as well as the balls. If Ford never released this seal for service, no wonder there isn't anything out there worth buying.
Did you see Don's "fix"
Geoff.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
#16
Geoff, yes I saw Don C's "Fix". That's why I feel we are lucky to have talented  people like Don and Hemikiller on our forum. I could probably spend hours searching for a solution to some of these "Off the Wall" things that seem to appear all the time. They definitely have the "Touch"!  
As far as parts with the "Hardware" style part numbers like  the brass fittings ( such as 374480-S),  the majority of the time Ford used the same number as the engineers assigned. The sheer number of screws, fasteners, clips, nuts, bolts, etc typically found on any given vehicle  would  a logistical nightmare to assign a regular Ford part number to. Much easier to assign service part numbers to body and powertrain parts than to the  thousands of numbers found in the typical hardware catalog.     Smile

Steve

No Officer...I really don't know how fast I was going, my speedometer stopped at 140!
  Reply
#17
I had actually used something similar on a '55 Willy's 4x4 wagon we had. I had put a 292 Y block and T98 (4-speed granny low) transmission, along with a Warn overdrive in it. With those and the 4.88 differentials it would climb like a mountain goat, we did a lot of exploring old mines and ghost towns in northern Nevada. The thin rubber boots on the tie rod ends, drag link, and pitman arm didn't last long going through the brush. Made it easy to find something someone else had already written up and had photos for.



“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
--Albert Einstein
  Reply
#18
(01-15-2019, 07:58 PM)secluff Wrote: Geoff, yes I saw Don C's "Fix". That's why I feel we are lucky to have talented  people like Don and Hemikiller on our forum. I could probably spend hours searching for a solution to some of these "Off the Wall" things that seem to appear all the time. They definitely have the "Touch"!  
As far as parts with the "Hardware" style part numbers like  the brass fittings ( such as 374480-S),  the majority of the time Ford used the same number as the engineers assigned. The sheer number of screws, fasteners, clips, nuts, bolts, etc typically found on any given vehicle  would  a logistical nightmare to assign a regular Ford part number to. Much easier to assign service part numbers to body and powertrain parts than to the  thousands of numbers found in the typical hardware catalog.     Smile

 Steve, we are ALL fortunate to have many very knowledgeable folk, including yourself on the Forum, to shed light on the mysteries of Ford in general. It really helps to know what's what when it come to numbering parts. Nothing was simple it seems.
As for Don's 'fix', that leads to other ideas worth exploring. After all, my specialty is in prototyping and finding ways to solve problems like this. I'll have to get my 'thinking cap' on!
Geoff

EDIT: Steve, would you happen to have or know the original part number for replacement pitman arms for a Saginaw PS box? I ought to have kept one of the two worn out ones I had for reference.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
#19
(01-15-2019, 08:19 PM)Don C Wrote: I had actually used something similar on a '55 Willy's 4x4 wagon we had. I had put a 292 Y block and T98 (4-speed granny low) transmission, along with a Warn overdrive in it. With those and the 4.88 differentials it would climb like a mountain goat, we did a lot of exploring old mines and ghost towns in northern Nevada. The thin rubber boots on the tie rod ends, drag link, and pitman arm didn't last long going through the brush. Made it easy to find something someone else had already written up and had photos for.

 In times of old!
 Interesting story Don.
 As I just posted to Steve, this got me thinking. I may have an idea worth looking at. I'll get back on that when I have more information.
 In the Spring, I'm going to replace the PS box for the one I just rebuilt and posted about. (too cold now to work on it). At that time, I'll decide whether I'll reuse the Rare Parts pitman arm and rework it to make the seal fit, or look for another that the proper seal will fit on to. What's another 100+ bucks at this point!!
at the least, that crappy felt ring has to go, stupid idea and just a dirt collector.
Geoff.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
#20
I posted this in the other thread, but in a nutshell, I went to Virginia Classic Mustang's website and entered the sku SU-1651. That is the part I bought some time back, but can't find right now. I got mine from NPD if I recall, but the same thing. From a picture, it appears that the seal basically just sits on top of the pitman arm between the arm and center link. This is listed as for 67-70. In Rackerm's picture it appears  the seal on the 71-73 fits OVER the arm, so maybe this is the difference between the two. I can't be sure on that as I don't have an original to compare. Perhaps someone else can confirm yes or no.
Regardless, there has to be something better than that stupid felt ring seal that the Rare Parts one comes with.
When I get to replace the PS box as I mentioned before, I may just look for an NOS pitman arm or better replacement. Besides, it never hurts to have a spare PS box ready to go.
Geoff.

I learn something new every day!
  Reply
Share Thread:  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dust/Dirt seal on Pitman Arm Post Stanglover 16 1,855 01-20-2019, 08:18 PM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Replacement PItman Arm Seal BigPinoyHunk 3 929 01-15-2019, 07:41 AM
Last Post: GeoBW
  71 Idler Arm w/Power Steering repair or replacement Monterey 10 406 01-09-2019, 07:15 PM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Recommendations on bolts for Idler Arm timachone 3 235 12-31-2018, 03:11 AM
Last Post: timachone
  P/S pitman arm Hemikiller 3 416 08-15-2018, 07:12 AM
Last Post: Stanglover
  looking for a rubber grommet nailpounder 4 337 06-20-2018, 06:11 PM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Moog upper control arm Phisto 14 952 06-13-2018, 06:54 PM
Last Post: Danno
  Lower control arm and strut rod bushing help needed vikingsandpintos 5 951 12-11-2017, 10:21 AM
Last Post: OMS



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)