Not another Mustang restoration thread.

I just got my first batch of chrome back from the plater. I only took in some of it so I could assess the quality before I committed to having everything done at this shop. I am very satisfied. 3 week turn around time and the parts look beautiful. They did this whole batch for $225.00. The windshield hardware was in pretty bad shape, but it looks better than I would expect it to look new. I will be taking the rest of the stuff in later this week.

shiny

vondy wrote: Wow that's nice! And looks to be a great price. My windshield hardware is not chromed, it's aluminum. I think my lift rings are stainless? But my scoops, step pad trim, and emblem (i lost one) could use a rechroming.

You must have different hardware for your windshield than either of my Mustangs. The pieces in the photo are all originally chrome plated, however the two windshield brackets (not pictured) that go between the center piece and the end pieces are brushed aluminum and not plated. The windshield frame is polished aluminum. The lift rings are steel and are chrome plated. Everything except the lifting rings are cheesy die cast (pot metal) and chrome plated. All of these parts, and pretty much everything he does, is triple plated. First it is copper plated, then nickel, then chrome. It should hold up really well. He showed me some Chris Craft hardware he had in there. It is really well made, not pot metal, and it is very heavy.

My window frame and hardware are brushed aluminum. I have the one piece window.

One of these days I might have to mail your guy my parts.

john b wrote: vondy wrote: Wow that's nice! And looks to be a great price. My windshield hardware is not chromed, it's aluminum. I think my lift rings are stainless? You must have different hardware for your windshield than either of my Mustangs.

Vondy, I believe you have a Water Bonnet windshield- same as I have on my Skier. I think John's 2-piece windshields are Taylor Made. I believe that would account for the different hardware.

Thanks for the lead on the plating shop John, I estimate that's about $400 worth at the shop I currently use and he's 6 weeks.

75 Tique wrote: John, What kind of shape were they in to start. Just dull, or were any of the parts pitted?

I had two sets of most everything and I took both sets in for the plater to examine. Although one was in somewhat better condition than the other, he said it didn't matter. He said the cost would be the same and the finish would be identical. He told me that die cast (pot metal) is harder than heavy pieces like the fittings from Chris Craft boats. The problem you run into, he told me, is the loss of detail, or possibly creating a hole in the item if it is pitted deeply and he has to take off a lot of metal in the acid bath and buffing prior to plating.

It is a trip going there. On the counter there were parts from a Whirlitzer juke box, a Schwinn Stingray, a pair of Olds 430 Valve covers, motorcycle parts ect. It seems that a lot of "restoration shops" just send everything to him. Almost all of his business is thorough the mail and he has customers all over the country. It is a small shop with about 4 or 5 employees and does not do production work as far as I can tell, just individual piece plating. I am lucky to have him in my home town.

Here are photos representative of the pieces I sent in.

Jllogan wrote: I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive

Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

that stuff is beautiful

Gary S wrote: Jllogan wrote: I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

I agree that the 60's hulls are thick enough to handle a no foam stringer job.

8122pbrainard wrote: Gary S wrote: Jllogan wrote: I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam. I agree that the 60's hulls are thick enough to handle a no foam stringer job.

At the same time, adding an extra support rib or 2 may not be the worst idea... if nothing else, it would provide some extra support for the floor panels (especially at the seams).

Chrome looks great John. Alan I'm assumeing you are still using Super Fine? I'm still waiting for my vents and I sent them waaay before John sent them to his place.

john b wrote: The reasons I'm considering foam are; Originality Floor support Flotation. The Hull on a Mustang seems pretty stout, and the roughest day on my chain is a nice day on the Chicago Ocean. Foam seems like an excellent way to support the floor on a Mustang. The fiberglass floor pan doesn't have much strength and I don't want it to develop stress cracks. I have read the arguments on several sites and many threads. My opinion is that either way is OK as long as it is a quality job.

If your planning on putting the fiberglass pan back in, I would definitely foam, it's not very solid just sitting on the stringers and few existing supports. I dug my foam out a couple of years ago and when with just the floor pan, it was not sturdy.

If my pan was any good, I would have looked at putting in a bunch of ribs and no foam. That way I could pull up the pan and air it all out, not have to ever worry about rot. I do love my nice rock solid plywood floor though.

[QUOTE=vondy]
If your planning on putting the fiberglass pan back in, I would definitely foam, it's not very solid just sitting on the stringers and few existing supports. I dug my foam out a couple of years ago and when with just the floor pan, it was not sturdy.
QUOTE]

I would agree BUT, there is no more support under the piece between the motor box and rear seat than the rest of the floor. They solved the problem by bonding plywood to that floor pan right? Same too with the toe board. I think that I could bond new wood to the whole pan,what do you guys think? Here is the piece I am talking about-

Gary, bonding wood to the pan is an interesting idea I had not thought of. It seems very practical if it can be done with no voids or warpage. It would allow the floor to be held down with screws in the original holes and it would be minimally noticeable, retaining an original appearance. It would also be nice to be able to pull it up for inspection or problems. It is something to seriously consider. I agree with Vondy, there is no way the pan can support much of anything. The area under the seat frame in the back has very little strength and one must take care not to put any weight on it when the rear seat frame is out. If you have any thoughts about how to hold the pan and wood together during the bonding I would love to hear them. Possibly you could use the existing holes where it is screwed to the floor and the seat mounting holes to screw it to the plywood in addition to a bunch of clamps. I would be pretty nervous making that bond knowing I could ruin a very good floor pan. I have another one, but as you know it has a big hole in it for the console. After seeing what you have done with your Mustang I was inspired to leave mine as close to original as possible. that is why I called this "not another Mustang restoration", it is more of a refurbishment. I also need to finish it by spring. I really want to have "Theseus' Paradox" shaken down and ready for Green Lake.