PCV valve adapter fitting

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
Per the factory Tiger parts list, the pictured part is shown in both the Mk1 and Mk2 parts list as Rootes part # 6100667 and Ford part # 378754. I believe the part was originally manufactured by Weatherhead... They were also used on domestic Ford cars in the early 60's. I am having a pal from the great white north make me one, but would be interested in members providing pictures of original ones for reference .
PCV adapter.jpg
 

Warren

Gold forum user
Messages
3,872
Sent to a member with one on his stock car. I remember looking at most of the usual places that stock Mustang stuff..
 

Franchi

Silver forum user
Messages
53
The MKII doesn't use this fitting or valve. MKII on the right.

David

tiger pcv valve.jpg
 
Last edited:

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
The MKII doesn't use this fitting or valve. MKII on the right.

David

View attachment 15374
Clearly listed in the factory parts list on page AAF8 Engine (Motor) -- MK2 plate reference D168. I've had a couple of MK2's in the shop.. one in the 100's and the other in the 400's.. Both cars had them.

The valves are different.. MK1 pcv valves are Ford part C3TZ-6A666-A, Mk2 valves are Ford part C3TZ06A666-D
 

Franchi

Silver forum user
Messages
53
That angle fitting is a misprint in the parts list for the MKII. The MKI and MKII pcv hose and valve are shown with different part numbers because the MKII doesn't use the angle fitting. Also, in my parts list, the PCV valve for the MKII is shown as C5AZ-6A666-A (which is the valve on the right in my photo), not C3TZ-6A666-D.
On a side note, the Tiger PCV valves are actually AC Delco made with Ford part numbers on them.

David
 

HolyCat

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
1,243
That angle fitting is a misprint in the parts list for the MKII. The MKI and MKII pcv hose and valve are shown with different part numbers because the MKII doesn't use the angle fitting. Also, in my parts list, the PCV valve for the MKII is shown as C5AZ-6A666-A (which is the valve on the right in my photo), not C3TZ-6A666-D.
On a side note, the Tiger PCV valves are actually AC Delco made with Ford part numbers on them.

David
This matches my memory. I bought my Mk II in August 1970. The title indicated it had been first sold in California in 1967 as a 1968 model. To me that indicates it was probably sold in the last half of the year, if not the last quarter. I do not recall seeing the angled adapter on its PCV valve when I bought the car, and I doubt it would have been changed out in 3 years or less.
 

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
That angle fitting is a misprint in the parts list for the MKII. The MKI and MKII pcv hose and valve are shown with different part numbers because the MKII doesn't use the angle fitting. Also, in my parts list, the PCV valve for the MKII is shown as C5AZ-6A666-A (which is the valve on the right in my photo), not C3TZ-6A666-D.
On a side note, the Tiger PCV valves are actually AC Delco made with Ford part numbers on them.

David
I'd love to know where this info comes from. The factory shop manual for the 260/289 shows the brass elbow as well. All three publications (owners handbook, part lists and manual) provide instructions for dismantling and cleaning of the PCV valve. The one explanation of differing valve part numbers would appear to be possible differences in the spring tension inside the valve. The listing for the PCV hose in the Mk2 catalog shows it as sold "by the foot" which would seem to indicate a hose which is not "formed"... (straight hose)
 

Franchi

Silver forum user
Messages
53
Info comes from over 25 years of collecting and selling Tiger parts. Shop manual etc. is just repeating the info for the 260, the MKII 289 uses a one piece valve and different hose.
I believe the MKII hose C3AZ-6A664-A was replaced by C6AZ-6A664-N, photos below. The original MKII hose and 1966 Fords (Mustang etc.) is not a "hose by the foot"

David

MKII pcv hose used.jpg


MKII pcv hose.jpg
 

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
Info comes from over 25 years of collecting and selling Tiger parts. Shop manual etc. is just repeating the info for the 260, the MKII 289 uses a one piece valve and different hose.
I believe the MKII hose C3AZ-6A664-A was replaced by C6AZ-6A664-N, photos below. The original MKII hose and 1966 Fords (Mustang etc.) is not a "hose by the foot"

David

View attachment 15379

View attachment 15380
so nothing definitive and documentary... the hose pictured it what Rick at Sunbeam Specialties sells. The parts list differs for the Mk2 in that the hose, referred to as part 6100979 is listed as "A/R" and under remarks, "order in feet". which would indicate a STRAIGHT HOSE. this is completely different from the entry for the MK1/Mk1a which has no such notation. I've got 40 years of experience in restoring British cars.. I have yet to run into multiple "Misprints" across the board in all of the publications for a specific model. Yes, I have seen running changes and a lot of "WSE" (When stock is exhausted) but nothing like what you have suggested.

So, barring a single dissent (or maybe two!) and some definitive written/recorded records or engineering documentation, I'm going to stick with my observations and the printed factory reference on the matter... no ill reflection at all....
 

Franchi

Silver forum user
Messages
53
Here you go, September 1967 Road & Track road test of a MKII, note there is no angle fitting at the hose connection.
Savid

MKII Road & Track.png
 

65sunbeam

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
399
MK2 PCV valve.jpg
Here is a photo of the PCV valve on the original owner 48,000 mile MK2 I drug home last year-a very stock original paint car that sat under the rear deck of a house and covered with a tarp so everything rusted so bad the car nearly broke in half when winched on the trailer.....Note the piles of birdseed that the mice placed all over the engine during the 40 years this poor Tiger rusted away.
 

mr55s

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
333
Hi Eric, what VIN would this car be in the run of 536 Mkll’s?
 

0neoffive

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
2,867
View attachment 15386 Here is a photo of the PCV valve on the original owner 48,000 mile MK2 I drug home last year-a very stock original paint car that sat under the rear deck of a house and covered with a tarp so everything rusted so bad the car nearly broke in half when winched on the trailer.....Note the piles of birdseed that the mice placed all over the engine during the 40 years this poor Tiger rusted away.
Now that is vintage patina fer sure !
 

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
View attachment 15386 Here is a photo of the PCV valve on the original owner 48,000 mile MK2 I drug home last year-a very stock original paint car that sat under the rear deck of a house and covered with a tarp so everything rusted so bad the car nearly broke in half when winched on the trailer.....Note the piles of birdseed that the mice placed all over the engine during the 40 years this poor Tiger rusted away.
I'm wondering more about the engine code. There were 2 different engine batches for the Mk2. A22KK and A11KK. These were intermingled indiscriminately through the production. I think that it's possible that one batch had them (the brass elbow) and the other batch didn't. As the engine specification would have been set by Ford, then relayed to Rootes so that they could publish support materials for the new engine. Under this scenario, you would have the possibility of an unanticipated running change. As Rootes seemingly scattered the two different batches between the production, it would be difficult to track this possibility by anything but the engine batch numbers.
 

65beam

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
1,841
How complete were the engines when shipped by Ford to Jenson? Were the engines ready for installation with things like the PCV, carb, hoses, etc. installed or did Jenson install these items? Did Jenson pull the engines at random or did they pull the lowest engine number first and work up thru the engine numbers?
 
Last edited:

Austin Healer

Gold forum user
Messages
1,392
How complete were the engines when shipped by Ford to Jenson? Were the engines ready for installation with things like the PCV, carb, hoses, etc. installed or did Jenson install these items? Did Jenson pull the engines at random or did they pull the lowest engine number first and work up thru the engine numbers?
How complete were the engines when shipped by Ford to Jenson? Were the engines ready for installation with things like the PCV, carb, hoses, etc. installed or did Jenson install these items? Did Jenson pull the engines at random or did they pull the lowest engine number first and work up thru the engine numbers?
They were shipped from Ford fully assembled and painted. This is why there are Tower type clamps on the thermostat bypass hose. Looking at the ledgers, they were not installed in any kind of order. The Mk2 cars are almost completely random. Not only are engines in the same batch (A11KK or A22KK) installed out of order, the batches are also intermixed, seemingly at random.

I am not surprised by this at all given my experience with Big Healeys. Jensen built the bodies for these cars, but the body numbers in relation to the chassis numbers are often wildly out of sequence.
 

Franchi

Silver forum user
Messages
53
Ford replaced the 260 engine in 1965 with the 289, by 1966 they had the later PCV set up, so 289 engines supplied to Rootes would all have the later PCV.
The parts book shows the old valve in the MKII picture, but lists the part number as C5AZ-6A666-A which is the later valve that doesn't use the earlier MKI 260 angle fitting or C3TZ-6A666-A valve.
There would be no early 289 MKII Tigers with the early PCV valve and angle fitting.
Note: My MKII, B382100156 has the late PCV set up, as it should.

David
 
Top