Spoiler II Owner’s Manual Supplement; Part Two

 

Last time we told you about the 1969 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II Owner’s Manual Supplement and showed you what we thought was a copy of the original document. Well, it was in away. Rick Ochs pointed out to us in the Comments section of the Post that what we had was a preliminary copy and not a final. It was in a way the prototype of the final document. What we were focused on in that document was the listing of a 428 engine as part of the specifications along with the 351 engine!

Since the copy of the Supplement we had was not the final version, I thought the issue was resolved. We then obtained what is actually the final version of the Supplement and the 428 engine specs are still present. That question seems to still be in play. However, we did find a number of other interesting changes.

As Rick Ochs pointed out, many of the part numbers in the preliminary document contained an “X” in the fourth digit of the part number. It seems Ford used this to hold a space until the correct letter was assigned when it became available. When Ford was testing a part for a race or muscle parts program they would use the “X” as the Engineering Department code. When a part went into production or used in a production plant it would be given a final Engineering Department letter for the correct department. For example, take the third part listed in the Supplement C9OX-6541006-A. When this part went into production the “X” was changed to “Z” for “Ford Service Part”. The remainder of the number remained the same. This is the way it was printed in the final version of the Owner’s Manual Supplement.

Look at the “Fender Assembly Front RH”. This shows part number “C9OGX-” This cannot be right. The “C” stands for the decade, “1960”, and the “9” stands the year, 1969. The “O” represents Fairlane/Torino; a “G” would be correct for a Montego (which is the body style the Spoiler II cars were built on). We know that the Spoiler II fenders are different from a Torino or Talladega. Was this a typo or did they originally intend on using a Talladega front end on the Spoiler II? This is unlikely and my guess is that it is a typo.

I sat down with the preliminary Owner’s Supplement alongside the final version and found considerable differences in the parts list. Obviously, the “Z” designations were changed out for the correct body group. In total, there were 60 different parts specified in the original preliminary Supplement but only 48 in the final. In addition, of those 48 there are 3 parts added that were not listed in the preliminary version. There were also many part numbers that changed between the two versions of the supplement. It appears from the individual part numbers that some were complete changes and others were updates to the original part.

One part number included in the preliminary version which got my attention was C9GX-16112-A Hood Assembly-Welded. Does the “Welded” comment refer to the leading edge of the hood with the trim holes being filled in or does it refer to the modification of the hood to fit the new extended fenders’ contour? Or both? Regardless, this part number is missing in the final version. We know that these modifications were made to Spoiler II hoods so why the part number deletion?

YOU WILL NOTE THAT EVEN ON THIS FINAL VERSION OF THE OWNERS MANUAL SUPPLEMENT FINAL VERSION THE 428 ENGINE IS STILL LISTED!

I am also confused as to why there is no part number for the turn signals. We all know they are from a Ford Van but what year? Why were these not included? There appear to be other parts missed as well.

How about that hard to find Hood Latch Cable and Handle, what are they from?

In addition to the part numbers that were added or deleted, there were 31 numbers that were changed! Some of these were sequential updates from “A” to “B” but many were completely new numbers and the fenders even went from a “B” back to an “A”. Does that mean there was a fender design change?

What criteria did Ford use to include or not include each part number in this Owner’s Manual Supplement? They included some of the Spoiler II specific body parts but not others. I don’t see the header panel that goes in front of the hood. Oh, and what about the spoiler?

If this document was intended to help an owner or his body shop replace certain items damaged in an accident it seems that they missed a lot of important parts. If that was not the intent of this document, what was? And, if this Owner’s Manual Supplement is so important to track different parts used on the Spoiler II why didn’t Ford do a similar Supplement for the Talladega?

CONFUSED? If you have any thoughts or comments or more examples please add them in the Comment section below.

Filed Under: FeaturedHistorical Paperwork and MemosMercury Spoiler II

Tags:

About the Author: Some of my first and strongest memories from my childhood relate to cars. I still remember when things happened based on what car I was driving at the time. I grew up and lived in Iowa for nearly 40 years before moving to Southern California and now live in Tennessee. I was a Corvette fanatic for years but then re-discovered vintage American Muscle. My wife, Katrina, and I decided we wanted to focus on unique and rare muscle cars. After a lot of research we fell in love with the Ford Blue Oval Aero Cars. These were only built in 1969 and and aerodynamics became an important part of winning races. The only purpose of these limited production cars was to win NASCAR races using the Boss 429 and 427 power plants complimented with a special, wind cheating, aerodynamic body. The Ford Talladega and Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II are terrific and historic cars. This site is devoted to these car and their owners past and present. We provide an Online Registry for recording the long term history and ownership of every remaining Talladega, Spoiler and Spoiler II.

Comments (4)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Rick Ochs says:

    Richard all the questions you are asking, answers are in Talladega bits. the hood handle is from a Lincoln, V is body code for Lincoln 1961 up.
    As to the turn signals they are in the Lamp Assembly – Parking light behind the Grill and listed in the Supplement 3th page 2nd & 3rd up from the bottom….. They are truck item’s and can be found in other 60’s trucks than the van.
    Now as I stated in one of the e-mails back and forth on this subject if the Spoiler II hood was so special to Spoiler II’s less the fact they were welded or leaded on the front edge due to the edge chrome being deleted can some one show me where they were cut and re-welded at he factory and show me a part number for this special hood???? the Talladega / Spoiler II weld manual shows just the edge to be filled on the stock hood and final fit to be done on line as hood was installed….have worked in the plant I have seen this done with rubber hammers and blocks of wood. Also as Spoiler II’s were not crashed tested as they are same platform as a Talladega and use the same rocker panel as the Talladega’s they were listed to be put into production with only the 351 W with the HSC, So as they may have been thinking of a 428 C J in a Spoiler II they would have had to make some changes to do this!

    • Richard says:

      Rick, As you mention, many of these questions have been previously answered on the site. However, owners and shops did not have this site as a reference back then and many of our readers (me included) can not remember every question and answer on this site. Thank you for your info.

      As for the crash test and rocker panel being the same as the Talladega, I am not sure what you are suggesting about a change needing to be made to the Spoiler II for a 428 CJ engine to be installed. If the two cars, Talladega and Spoiler II, have the same floor pan and rocker panels and the Talladega has a 428 CJ then why couldn’t the Spoiler II also have a 428 CJ without additional crash testing?

      • Rick Ochs says:

        Your welcome. I just feel if we are going to put out info about these cars it should be correct thus I am not going to add information to this or any other site that I know is not correct, not in it for the flash and will not come back latter and state well Johnny come lately told me that….our facts are backed up by are own Talladega’s, Factory Documents, and have spent time on the line.
        Now as to the Crash test question you asked ? When Ford crash tested the Talladega’s for the Fed’s because of the rocker panel change it was because on uni-body cars as T’s and II’s are the rocker makes up the main support of the body and attached parts, Feds were interested in how much fold these rockers would take, like in a head on crash how far back would the front end move back or how far back could a steering column move back ? or in rear end crash how much fold would take place there is no steel frame (one piece end to end or bumper to bumper) under there and as the Spoiler II used a smaller and lighter drive train they did not need to be crash tested….Thing is if Ford put a 428 CJ in a Spoiler II they would need to change parts to take the weight change. Think of the front springs for just one or say front shocks thus Ford would be not in line with what they told the fed’s, not a good thing ! Now Richard go out to your Garage and look at the shock towers on your Spoiler II than look at your Talladega see any difference ??? The Fed’s did not care about Ford winning race’s they cared about driver’s and passenger’s safety thus Ford could put a 428 CJ in a Spoiler II thing is to be safe changes would be needed….!

        • Richard says:

          Rick, it has never been our intent to intentionally post information on the site that we knew was incorrect. For you to suggest such is a disappointment and an insult. If I find out later that something is not factually correct, I try to fix it. Sometimes this is extremely difficult because it may appear in more than one location on the web site. I do not believe that is the case here.
          The post that is the point of this discussion DOES NOT state that Mercury every put a 428 CJ in the Spoiler II. However, it is strange that their own Owner’s Manual Supplement includes specifications for an engine that was never (to the best of our knowledge) ever installed in the car. The purpose of our article was to point our that maybe, just maybe, the installation of an optional 428 in the Spoiler II may have been considered at some point and the Supplement was never corrected.
          I never worked for Ford or Mercury in the plant, I never worked for either in any capacity. Neither have I worked in a lot of places but that does not mean I don’t understand the business or a product built by them. I have learned in life that many individuals with the same experiences often have very different opinions of how things happened. That is why legitimate Journalist require two independent sources for information when they don’t proof for a basis of their article. Because we are dealing with cars that are now over 50 years old that is very difficult to do.
          Again, I am not stating a production Spoiler II was ever built with a 428 CJ but I remain convinced, in my opinion, that the Spoiler II did not need crash testing due to its similarity to the Talladega. You have stated the 351 Spoiler II was not required by the Feds to be crash tested because it was powered by a smaller 351 and otherwise similar to the Talladega. Let me explain. I do have a Talladega and Spoiler II in my garage and did look at the shock towers in both. I also have a 428 CJ Ram Air Spoiler sitting next to them. I also looked at its shock towers. They all three appear, to the casual observer, to be identical. However, it is my understanding that the 428 CJ cars have additional welding and I also understand that the radiator support has the extra brace (which was also included in the extra cooling package of the Spoiler II). Now, if a Spoiler II had the Cyclone 428 CJ shock towers, springs etc. why would that combination need to have its own crash test? Mercury had Spoilers with 390, 428 CJ and 428 SCJ cars to pull parts from for a potential 428 CJ Spoiler II. If such a Spoiler II had been built it would be the same, under the skin, as a Talladega. My point is, if Mercury did not put a 428 CJ in a Spoiler II is was likely due to reasons other than crash testing.

Leave a Reply

*

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software