The first few early cars received the Flat-Style trim on the exhaust cut outs (this version was later used on 1968 Cougars). These were made and installed at LAX by Shelby American workers until approximately 10/28/66. That only includes approximately 6 production cars.
(Some background; Shelby workers at LAX made the cut-out opening in the standard Mustang valance. It had no cut-outs for the dual exhaust tips that Shelby American would be adding to exit out the rear of the cars. These hand cut openings were rough and needed a trim piece to dress them up.)
The two brochures cars (V-738-2 and #0176) also had the Flat-style trim.
The Flat-Style is thought to be a prototype solution. It was replaced by using the existing '66 Mustang Hi-Po exhaust trim. Shelby workers only had to cut off the lower portion. These pieces were a readily available Ford part that only needed the trimming to use (thus a faster and less Shelby worker or sub-contractor expense). These '66 Mustang trim pieces were used until the end of March '67 on approximately 1725 cars. The change notice for the '67 GT Valance was issued 1/13/67 and stamped received on 1/25. When it was implemented by Ford on Shelby units is still in question. My unit estimate is not valid.
At this point, base Mustangs were shipped to Shelby American with the standard '67 Mustang GT rear valance. The Mustang GT valance had a wide stamped opening to accommodate the twin exhaust tips used on the Ford Mustang GT. The GT valance was used for the remainder of the '67 Shelby production.
Below is a short list of the cars known or believed to have this Flat-Style. If you have or know of any others please let us know.
Car # Model Trim SA Completion / Source
V-738-2 GT500 Flat 9/1/66 (estimated) Sid Avery photo
0176 GT350 Flat 9/1/66 (estimated) Sid Avery photo
0003 GT350 Flat 10/19/66 photo BG
0018 GT350 ? 10/19/66 uncertain which version from SA
0002 GT350 Flat 10/20/66 photo JD
0019 GT350 ? 10/20/66
0024 GT350 ? 10/26/66
0031 GT350 Flat 10/26/66 photo rcgt350
0004 GT350 '66 style 10/31/66 photo shows '66 trim style
0017 GT350 ? 10/31/66 photo appears to have '66 trim style
0029 GT350 ? 10/31/66 photo appears to have '66 trim style
0030 GT350 '66 style 10/31/66 photo shows '66 trim style
0049 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0053 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0059 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0060 GT350 ? 10/31/66 photo appears to have '66 trim style
0066 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0072 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0075 GT350 ? 10/31/66
0078 GT350 '66 style 10/31/66 photo appears to have '66 trim style
Thanks to JD and Randy "rscgt350", for sharing photos and added information.
Edit 4/27/2023
The first few cars with the flat trim are not made from the Cougar parts.
After some conversation with Greg Kolasa, and following his caption in one of his books,
We determined the Cougat trim part was added after they the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim.
It did not need to be cut to fit, saving time, and was a natural progression from the '66 Mustang part used.
It appears the Cougar trim was used on the tail end of trim parts needed...right around the transiotion to the stamped valance opening.
We see the Cougar trim on cars in the 700 VIn range. Cars with the stanped valance were arriving at that same time
The transition date is critical to note on the Shelby American 'Production Order'
It will help to determine the trim type that should be used in any restoration.
There were more than a few cars that had the Cougar trim part.
Flat Trim brochure cars;
#0176 GT350
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518175723-1116286.jpeg)
V-732-8 GT500
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518175724-12641178.jpeg)
#0002
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518175724-1265273.jpeg)
#0031
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518175724-12661865.jpeg)
#0003
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518175724-12671984.jpeg)
Standard Mustang Valance (part as delivered to SA prior to April '67)
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518181145-1268438.jpeg)
'66 Hi-Po Exhaust Trim on left / Valance with cut out and Trim piece cut to fit on right
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518181145-12691085.jpeg)
Standard Mustang GT Valance with Stamped exhaust notch
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518181145-12702018.jpeg)
Shelby exhaust tip with standard Mustang GT Valance
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518181145-12712090.jpeg)
M. Sullivan drawing "Bezel Assembly Exhaust Interim" 10/20/66
Interesting the part was called "Interim" and the date of the draft was on the second day of production.
center
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518214141.jpeg)
bottom
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-280518181145-127292.jpeg)
Dear Rich,
You said, "The Flat-Style is thought to be a prototype solution. It was replaced by using the existing '66 Mustang Hi-Po exhaust trim. Shelby workers only had to cut off the lower portion."
On the set I had, it looks like there was a bit of modifying necessary to create the trim ring from the Hi-Po exhaust trim ring. It looks to be a bit more complicated than just cutting the bottoms off:
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/196-280518194621.jpeg)
Also, here is a pic of the believed to be original exhust trim rings on car no. 003:
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/196-280518195220.jpeg)
The only Cougars that got the chrome exhaust trim where the XR7-Gs which were converted to G's at Smith via Shelby Automotive.
Here are the blueprints for those.
- Phillip
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/134-280518204512.jpeg)
Quote from: BGlover67 on May 28, 2018, 07:54:51 PM
Dear Rich,
You said, "The Flat-Style is thought to be a prototype solution. It was replaced by using the existing '66 Mustang Hi-Po exhaust trim. Shelby workers only had to cut off the lower portion."
On the set I had, it looks like there was a bit of modifying necessary to create the trim ring from the Hi-Po exhaust trim ring. It looks to be a bit more complicated than just cutting the bottoms off:
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/196-280518194621.jpeg)
Brian,
It look like the lower 45% was cut off so the top would retain the three studs for mounting.
What other modification do you think was needed?
I should have given you and JGuyer (?) credit for the photo of the #0003 exhaust trim photo in my second reply.
Although still a flat style, it does not appear to match the others trim pieces shown on the other early cars.
Quote from: propayne on May 28, 2018, 08:49:41 PM
The only Cougars that got the chrome exhaust trim where the XR7-Gs which were converted to G's at Smith via Shelby Automotive.
Here are the blueprints for those.
- Phillip
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/134-280518204512.jpeg)
Phillip,
THANK YOU for posting the Cougar trim drawing and educating us on the model that received them. They don't appear to be an exact match to the '67 Shelby trim piece with the longer straight downward ends.
It is interesting that the '67 Shelby #0003 appears to match this Cougar drawing with the same longer straight downward ends.
Since #0003 has been modified with a '68 taillight panel and other odds parts, we can't be certain the exhaust trim pieces are original to the car.
Yes there was a bit more to do than just snipping off a portion of the bottom of the '66 GT exhaust trim rings but not much. Some quick work with the tin snipes bend a couple ends with pliers and drill one hole, maybe ten minute tops.
Rich, good that you could use many of the images of cars and the drawing that were provided ;-)
Sorry Rich, I didn't see you posted it already. Credit goes entirely to John Guyer. He's da man.
As for the cut, I think it's actually a fairly complex cut to acheive the final result. First, it is cut like in this picture I believe.
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/196-280518232650.jpeg)
The 'tab' is bent up and rolled over to create an end, and then one side wall is bent in also. Here is a view from the bottom of the ring on 26. JD might be able to give some more insight into it's history.
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/196-280518232621.jpeg)
To the best of my knowledge the ones on #26 are the originals. If I remember correctly the left and right are not quit the same, there are some hand-done differences on the very bottom edges that were rolled-back.
Not sure if there was a jig made to do these in batches or if they were done "free-hand" by each worker that day, that shift, that car.
The 66 GT cut-off on 0036 did not have cuts like that either. Likely just as JD said - that employee, that shift, that day.
The question about how many cars have the valence exhaust cutout with the '66 Mustang "Hi-Po" trim came up in another thread.
I was asking if it had a parts date code on the Mustang GT stamped valance. (wondering if the date code was prior to the cars build date of 3/22/67)
Rather than cluttering up that forum members car thread with the replies about this specific part, I thought we could shift the discussion here.
On Brian's "1967ShelbyConvertible" website I've been reading some of the group discussions on the DSO observations.
In his January 1967 observations, it mentions when the transition to the Mustang GT style occurred (written on a change notice stamped received 1/25).
He notes this would effect cars starting with DSO 2580 and later. The earliest SJ build date on that DSO is 3/30/67.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/shelbyresearch/iVFYFlk_u9g
Based on the above note, I estimated 1725 cars built with the '66 Mustang trim (minus the 6 or so with the flat trim) from the earlier DSOs.
That should leave the remaining later built 1500 cars with the 67 Mustang GT stamped style. These estimates are no longer valid.
Perhaps what I did not consider is if a lower (or higher) number DSO might have been fulfilled built before or after this change noticed was issued.
That would definitely affect my estimated count.
From SAAC I received my DSO 84-2571 with a "DATE 1/30/67", a "DECENT. DATE 1/30" and a "SCHED. DATE 2/6".
It's in the order of 280 steel wheel cars.
Can't seem to correlate the dates with what's said in the link.
Quote from: Bossbill on June 07, 2018, 07:41:17 PM
From SAAC I received my DSO 84-2571 with a "DATE 1/30/67", a "DECENT. DATE 1/30" and a "SCHED. DATE 2/6".
It's in the order of 280 steel wheel cars.
Can't seem to correlate the dates with what's said in the link.
Were going off track here from the rear valence issue, but let's take a quick look as it relates to the dates. It took some time between the written change notice and when it was implemented.
I'm not clear on what the "DECENT DATE" is, but it's close to the date that the car would have been serialized (noted as 1/31 on a few Marti reports for DSO 84-2571). Your "SCHED DATE is not as close to what these few Marti reports show for the scheduled date of 2/22. The actual build date varies (3/16, 3/21, & 3/22) Per the registry, also Simkins Data file, the Ford build dates vary from as early as 2/16 to as late as 3/29. This was the largest DSO order at 280 cars (not all were noted as steel wheel cars, but it was the largest group of them in a DSO at 162 units with hubcaps).
Brian has this DSO 2571 listed in his December "Observations"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/shelbyresearch/hmltZpz4Rdg
From that referenced doc:
"Starting with DSO 2571 (typed 12/14/1966 & rec'd 12/28/66), the DSO Item Numbers were now typed on the order forms whereas they were previously handwritten. The Item Number sequence seems to have "reset" to 1513 and became "ascending" as DSO numbrs continued to ascend."
I can't correlate any of the typed or received dates with my copy of DSO 84-2571 (my prev post).
The reason this matters is that my car has a GT valance, it's date coded to within all the other sheet metal on the car, has the rotation number on it, is the original color, and is galvanized/red oxide under the original paint and the car has a build date before 3/22/67.
Quote from: Bossbill on June 08, 2018, 03:17:42 PM
From that referenced doc:
"Starting with DSO 2571 (typed 12/14/1966 & rec'd 12/28/66), the DSO Item Numbers were now typed on the order forms whereas they were previously handwritten. The Item Number sequence seems to have "reset" to 1513 and became "ascending" as DSO numbrs continued to ascend."
I can't correlate any of the typed or received dates with my copy of DSO 84-2571 (my prev post).
The reason this matters is that my car has a GT valance, it's date coded to within all the other sheet metal on the car, has the rotation number on it, is the original color, and is galvanized/red oxide under the original paint and the car has a build date before 3/22/67.
Thank You Bill,
This helps me understand what you mean. It is relevant! Brian states the change notice with the GT valance part was written on Jan 25th.
Your '67 Mustang GT rear valance dated prior to your car's 3/02/67 SJ completion date supports what Bob and Dennis have said (more cars with the GT valance / less with the 66 trim and cutout).
I'm not a part of Brian's Google group, but do have his email. I'll send him a note, reference this thread, and see what he had to say. It does seem like the DSO 84-2580 is a bit too late and there are earlier DSO's with the added '67 GT valance. On DSO 84-2571 the earliest SJ completion date is 2/16/67 that's almost 6 weeks earlier than the 3/30/67 earliest completion date on DSO 84-2580. We're talking about a difference of at least 400 hundred cars.
(I will correct my estimated numbers in the first reply as soon as I can get this sorted out.)
Brian responded quickly to my email. He was very receptive to the discussion here questioning the staring point date of the '67 GT valance. The change notice is stamped as received on January 25th 1967 with the part number clearly noted. The DSO listed at the top of the form is a little difficult to read (from the Ford microfilm) and an error was made. He is removing the DSO-2580 as the starting point for the change over in his January "Observations".
Clearly the '67 GT valance was used on Shelby base units prior to the 3/30/67 date I noted previously. This negates my earlier unit estimates for each of the rear valance versions. I have updated those posts, striking out that text, and noting it as invalid. I apologize for that. We still don't know the exact date when the changeover occurred. Based on past conversations from the old forum it was thought to be around the end of February / early March.
I really appreciate the way you guys went about gathering facts, correcting as needed and then coming to a slightly different conclusion on an admittedly difficult topic.
And with 50 year old data on fiche!
You guys rock.
I recently read a post started by "BossBill" on the Concours Mustang Forum. The thread answers the question I was asking myself. "When did the stamped GT valance first go into production on the '67 Mustang?" Jeff Speegle replied from Job #1. Bob Gaines also mentioned turn downs instead of twin tips possibly on early built Mustangs.
see link attached; http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=18242.0
That got me very curious about the exhaust turn downs on GT models. Digging through my old book "Mustang Does It" I found an excerpt that states the GT appearance option was available on all four V8 models in 1967. (This includes the "A", "C", "K", and "S" code engines) It continued to note only the larger "K" and S" codes engines had the twin tip dual exhaust with the stamped GT valance. That means the "A" and "C" codes had the turndowns and a standard valance. A quick search on the internet showed the same information on the first site I opened.
Since the GT stamped panel could be found from the start of Mustang production they could be matched up to any Shelby by SJ completion dates. It also means that despite the extra work required, Shelby actually wanted the standard panel instead of the stamped GT part (so they could custom fit the cutout to match their added larger single exhaust tips). The change order to start using the stamped GT part was likely implemented by Geddes as another time and cost saving detail.
This doesn't help answer the question when they started using the GT stamped valance, but if the change notice was "received" by Ford on Jan 25th, Ford could have implemented this request immediately on the next DSO (or possibly even during fulfillment of a DSO already in process).
Quote from: Richstang on June 28, 2018, 01:46:11 PM
That got me very curious about the exhaust turn downs on GT models. Digging through my old book "Mustang Does It" I found an excerpt that states the GT appearance option was available on all four V8 models in 1967. (This includes the "A", "C", "K", and "S" code engines) It continued to note only the larger "K" and S" codes engines had the twin tip dual exhaust with the stamped GT valance. That means the "A" and "C" codes had the turndowns and a standard valance. A quick search on the internet showed the same information on the first site I opened.
For the Mustang the cars that came with single exhaust and were GT's, those rear exhaust pipes have a turn down formed into the tail pipe rather than them having a turn down that is attached to the tail pipe like used for dual exhaust cars that were non-GT's
So basically it was
A & C code with and without the GT package. = standard valance and turned down exhaust
K & S code without the GT package = standard valance and turned down exhaust tips
K & S code with the GT package = GT rear valance and dual exhaust tips through the openings
Didn't all 67 K code Mustangs (not incl Shelbys) have to be GTs?
Quote from: Bossbill on June 28, 2018, 07:37:03 PM
Didn't all 67 K code Mustangs (not incl Shelbys) have to be GTs?
Guess only Kevin Marti could confirm one was or another but do have pictures of 67 K codes that appear not to be GT's and I can't see where an owner would remove that package and make a plain non-GT out of a car if it had been one originally. Lots of work for no benefit as these were no restored cars just a driver. Should also be noted that the same (all S code 67 were GTs) was a fairly common belief in the past and that has been disproved
I found a Marti report for an "A" code 289 4v with the GT appearance package and also a "S" code 390 4v without a GT package.
Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package and a "K" code without a GT package.
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:00:00 AM
Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package
If still looking, I have several. Send PM with email address and I will send some.
Quote from: 67_1183 on June 29, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:00:00 AM
Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package
If still looking, I have several. Send PM with email address and I will send some.
Thanks Jeff,
I found a Marti Report for a "C" code Mustang with the GT package during lunchtime today.
Also found a photo of an "A" code GT that had a standard valance. Most of the "A" and "C" code Mustangs I have seen all have the GT Stamped valance, but those were restored cars so who knows what was originally on them.
Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code
without the GT package.
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:04:59 PM
Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.
Would not expect you or I to find one since the number of these possible cars may have been only a handful - guess would be 10 or less. And would expect that many have been by now, built as a GT by some prior owner assuming that by adding the option would make it more valuable not realizing the rarity of what they had.
Guess I could send in for the Marti report for the car I have the pictures of. Hmmm
Quote from: J_Speegle on June 29, 2018, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:04:59 PM
Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.
Would not expect you or I to find one since the number of these possible cars may have been only a handful - guess would be 10 or less. And would expect that many have been by now, built as a GT by some prior owner assuming that by adding the option would make it more valuable not realizing the rarity of what they had.
Guess I could send in for the Marti report for the car I have the pictures of. Hmmm
I didn't think I'd find one, (knowing the numbers would be very small) but definitely worth looking for.
Today I came across an article or two noting the "K" code required the GT package. That Conflicts with the info we've noted previously.
(Perhaps this was a running change by Ford?)
If your able to get a Marti for the one you know of, it would be very interesting to see the build date and numbers.
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:04:59 PM
Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.
I found one for a Shelby TA car. Vehicle Order Image shows A code, but the rest of the Marti is K code, non GT. Special case.
7R01K21xx06
Quote from: 67_1183 on June 30, 2018, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Richstang on June 29, 2018, 09:04:59 PM
Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.
I found one for a Shelby TA car. Vehicle Order Image shows A code, but the rest of the Marti is K code, non GT. Special case.
7R01K21xx06
I came across that one too. Got very excited for a moment...then realized it was one of the T/A coupes.
As noted in the first post of this thread
The first few cars with the flat trim are not made from the Cougar Trim parts!
After some conversations with Greg Kolasa, and following his caption in one of his books,
We agreed the Cougat trim part was added after the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim was used.
It did not need to be cut to fit, saving time, and was a natural progression from the '66 Mustang part used.
It appears the Cougar trim was used at the tail end of trim parts needed...around the transition to the stamped valance opening.
We see the Cougar trim on some cars in the 700 VIN range.
Cars with the stamped valance were arriving at that same time
The transition date is critical to note on the Shelby American 'Production Order' completion date and upper right circled date.
It will help to determine the trim type (if needed) that should be used in any restoration.
There were more than a few cars that had the Cougar trim part.
All those Cougars were produced long after the January 1968 date on the drawing. I don't see any connection to 1967 Shelby production.
Quote from: Royce Peterson on April 27, 2023, 07:08:45 PM
All those Cougars were produced long after the January 1968 date on the drawing. I don't see any connection to 1967 Shelby production.
Yes, the AO Smith drawing doesn't add up, but it mght have been for the 1968 Cougar XR-7S.
The SAI drawing is print dated 10/22/1966, but had handwritten 1/9/67 with the initials OBS
That was shortly before we start seeing the Cougar trim appearing on the 1967 Shelby's.
We've found many cars with the Cougar trim that were completed in February 1967 and later.
Ford received the stamped GT valance change notice with a stamped received date of 1/25/67.
I imagine Ford's involvement offered the '67 Cougar trim to shorten assembly time at SAI.
We know that was part of Fred Goodell's initiative upon arrival at SAI.
It also eliminated the time of cutting and modifying fitment to the '66 Mustang part.
Quote from: Richstang on April 27, 2023, 11:53:26 PM
Quote from: Royce Peterson on April 27, 2023, 07:08:45 PM
All those Cougars were produced long after the January 1968 date on the drawing. I don't see any connection to 1967 Shelby production.
Yes, the AO Smith drawing doesn't add up, but it mght have been for the 1968 Cougar XR-7S.
The SAI drawing is print dated 10/22/1966, but had handwritten 1/9/67 with the initials OBS
That was shortly before we start seeing the Cougar trim appearing on the 1967 Shelby's.
We've found many cars with the Cougar trim that were completed in February 1967 and later.
Ford received the stamped GT valance change notice with a stamped received date of 1/25/67.
I imagine Ford's involvement offered the '67 Cougar trim to shorten assembly time at SAI.
We know that was part of Fred Goodell's initiative upon arrival at SAI.
It also eliminated the time of cutting and modifying fitment to the '66 Mustang part.
The XR7-G's werre produced beginning in mid January 1968. There were two XR7-S Cougars built that made the January 1967 cover of Motor Trend Magazine. They would have to have been built by September 1966 to have made the magazine cover in those days. I am unaware of any drawings of the rear valance on the XR7-S.
Quote from: Richstang on April 27, 2023, 05:10:22 PM
As noted in the first post of this thread
The first few cars with the flat trim are not made from the Cougar Trim parts!
After some conversations with Greg Kolasa, and following his caption in one of his books,
We agreed the Cougat trim part was added after the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim was used.
It did not need to be cut to fit, saving time, and was a natural progression from the '66 Mustang part used.
It appears the Cougar trim was used at the tail end of trim parts needed...around the transition to the stamped valance opening.
We see the Cougar trim on some cars in the 700 VIN range.
Cars with the stamped valance were arriving at that same time
The transition date is critical to note on the Shelby American 'Production Order' completion date and upper right circled date.
It will help to determine the trim type (if needed) that should be used in any restoration.
There were more than a few cars that had the Cougar trim part.
This is not correct. The Cougar trim was used early on in production. My all original, original paint GT 350, Assembly date 10/13/66 and Shelby completed date 11/9/66 has the Cougar trim, as does every other GT 350 completed near those dates that I have seen.
Dave
I guess my question is why are these particular trim parts used on the '67 Shelbys referred to as "Cougar Trim"?
Is there any other company paperwork or technical drawings (besides the XR7-G plans that I posted with a date that is too late) that call them out as Cougar pieces?
- Phillip
Maybe too late to try and "correct" the terminology of these but -
Note the 10-20-66 drawing from Shelby American titles the FIRST of this "flat" rear valance exhaust trim part as "1967 GT350 & GT500 Bezel - Assembly Exhaust - Interim" part not a "Cougar" part. The AO Smith Cougar part looks to have been based on the earlier Shelby part and the drawing is dated later.
Everyone is "back-terming" the "flat" exhaust trim part as a Cougar part used on some early '67 Shelby's - a later part used on a different earlier car? not according to the two drawing dates.
'67 Shelby "Flat" Exhaust Trim
'66 Mustang GT modified exhaust trim - used on some '67 Shelby's
'68 Cougar XR7-G Exhaust trim
Quote from: GT350DAVE on April 28, 2023, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 27, 2023, 05:10:22 PM
As noted in the first post of this thread
The first few cars with the flat trim are not made from the Cougar Trim parts!
After some conversations with Greg Kolasa, and following his caption in one of his books,
We agreed the Cougat trim part was added after the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim was used.
It did not need to be cut to fit, saving time, and was a natural progression from the '66 Mustang part used.
It appears the Cougar trim was used at the tail end of trim parts needed...around the transition to the stamped valance opening.
We see the Cougar trim on some cars in the 700 VIN range.
Cars with the stamped valance were arriving at that same time
The transition date is critical to note on the Shelby American 'Production Order' completion date and upper right circled date.
It will help to determine the trim type (if needed) that should be used in any restoration.
There were more than a few cars that had the Cougar trim part.
This is not correct. The Cougar trim was used early on in production. My all original, original paint GT 350, Assembly date 10/13/66 and Shelby completed date 11/9/66 has the Cougar trim, as does every other GT 350 completed near those dates that I have seen.
Dave
There were no Cougars using such parts then. Why would anyone call it Cougar trim?
Originally, I thought the flat "Cougar" (named decades ago) trim was used first in production
My new THEORY is different. It is always evolving as new information comes to light.
I should add, there is no right or wrong answer here. I am still gathering data and seeking photos for more evidence.
Years ago, I saw Greg Kolasa's book with the photos and captions.
I asked him why he thought the flat "Cougar" trim parts were used later. He made three great points.
-1st the photo evidence; such as car #00723.
-2nd the timing; the '67 flat 'Cougar" trim came out after the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim.
-3rd cost and time savings; why would SAI go backwards in time to get the older Ford parts.
The flat "Cougar" parts were newer, easier to get from Ford, and would save assembly time and money
All were very good points...However, I didn't just take Greg's word. I've been looking deeper for years.
Trim #1; Brochure V-738-2 and #00176. Very thin, flat, and highly polished (or chrome plated).
These parts also appear to be on very early production cars, not nearly as thick as the flat "Cougar" trim parts.
They appear hand fabricated and very, very thin
Day one #00003 – #00018
Day two #00002 – #00019
Day three #00024 – #000031 (maybe...we see a handmade appearing flat part on #00031)
Trim #2; 1966 Mustang Hi-Po trim, production part.
Trim is cut about 60-65% down from top with visible top screw needed.
Has a tighter cut-out around exhaust and an inner area at the top covering the valance cut-out
#00004; SAI 10/3166
#00017; SAI 10/31/66
#00050 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#00100 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#0187; SAI 12/22/66
Trim #3; 1967 flat "Cougar", production part
No inner section to cover the valance cut-out, thicker depth by approximately 4-5X
Requires a slight higher cut-out in the valance to fit the part
#00751; SAI completion date 2/13,
#00705; SAI completion date 2/17
#00702; SAI completion date 3/31
#0723; SAI completion date 4/3
#00881; SAI completion date 4/13
#000742; SAI completion date 5/11
Trim #2
Trim #3
Quote from: Richstang on April 28, 2023, 06:00:02 PM
Originally, I thought the flat "Cougar" (named decades ago) trim was used first in production
My new THEORY is different. It is always evolving as new information comes to light.
I should add, there is no right or wrong answer here. I am still gathering data and seeking photos for more evidence.
Years ago, I saw Greg Kolasa's book with the photos and captions.
I asked him why he thought the flat "Cougar" trim parts were used later. He made three great points.
-1st the photo evidence; such as car #00723.
-2nd the timing; the '67 flat 'Cougar" trim came out after the '66 Mustang Hi-Po trim.
-3rd cost and time savings; why would SAI go backwards in time to get the older Ford parts.
The flat "Cougar" parts were newer, easier to get from Ford, and would save assembly time and money
All were very good points...However, I didn't just take Greg's word. I've been looking deeper for years.
Trim #1; Brochure V-738-2 and #00176. Very thin, flat, and highly polished (or chrome plated).
These parts also appear to be on very early production cars, not nearly as thick as the flat "Cougar" trim parts.
They appear hand fabricated and very, very thin
Day one #00003 – #00018
Day two #00002 – #00019
Day three #00024 – #000031 (maybe...we see a handmade appearing flat part on #00031)
Trim #2; 1966 Mustang Hi-Po trim, production part.
Trim is cut about 60-65% down from top with visible top screw needed.
Has a tighter cut-out around exhaust and an inner area at the top covering the valance cut-out
#00004; SAI 10/3166
#00017; SAI 10/31/66
#00050 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#00100 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#0187; SAI 12/22/66
Trim #3; 1967 flat "Cougar", production part
No inner section to cover the valance cut-out, thicker depth by approximately 4-5X
Requires a slight higher cut-out in the valance to fit the part
#00751; SAI completion date 2/13,
#00705; SAI completion date 2/17
#00702; SAI completion date 3/31
#0723; SAI completion date 4/3
#00881; SAI completion date 4/13
#000742; SAI completion date 5/11
Rich,
1)l may be wrong but I don't believe Greg believes that about the early cars any more. Some of the theories about the later cars may be correct.
2)The last time Greg and I discussed this topic was earlier this month, April 6th when I provided details and photos. I would be glad to share them with you.
3)I am not new to this, if you asked me, which you didn't, I would have given you my opinion from collecting data, owning and restoring these cars for over 30 years.
Dave
I spoke with Greg earlier this month on this topic as well, there is intent and then reality, and the dates on the blueprints - then there is the "Shelby American production methodology circa 1966/67" and deadlines to produce cars for introduction date mid-November 1966 - the "Showing Cars".
Bouncing back and forth for handy solutions (having parts made verses using existing Ford parts and modifying them) could be a real thing.
(Car #26 had the modified '66 GT trim pieces - one of the Showing Cars, I believe it was the original)
My opinion is some early got the Shelby flat version others got the '66 Mustang GT modified and it bounce back and forth until the decision was to scrap all of it and just use the '67 Mustang GT rear Valance - less parts, less work - Ford paint it and Done! Bob is correct I left out the Ford part of doing the painting and the valance is done Shelby workers don't have to touch it any more!
Acknowledging the variations and the general time periods they were used maybe as good as it gets?
Quote from: JD on April 29, 2023, 12:28:54 PM
I spoke with Greg earlier this month on this topic as well, there is intent and then reality, and the dates on the blueprints - then there is the "Shelby American production methodology circa 1966/67" and deadlines to produce cars for introduction date mid-November 1966 - the "Showing Cars".
Bouncing back and forth for handy solutions (having parts made verses using existing Ford parts and modifying them) could be a real thing.
(Car #26 had the modified '66 GT trim pieces - one of the Showing Cars, I believe it was the original)
My opinion is some early got the Shelby flat version others got the '66 Mustang GT modified and it bounce back and forth until the decision was to scrap all of it and just use the '67 Mustang GT rear Valance - less parts, less work - paint it and Done!
Acknowledging the variations and the general time periods they were used maybe as good as it gets?
I agree with this but I think a typo "less parts, less work -
paint it and Done!" . The Mustang rear valance was painted at Ford. It also seems reasonable to assume that SA had a heads up from Ford that the evolved GT valance was shortly going to be put into production.