For the first 50 or so 66 chasses delivered (i.e. 253-310), what do we know of the build dates on the ID tags on those AUTOMATIC transmissions? Does anyone have a tag photo from one of these transmissions, or what was stamped on one???
Tom, I own 281 and based on what I've seen when comparing other cars close to ours, the Ford vins are all very close. 281 is missing its original C4 hipo tag. A friend shared the pictures I have attached from a San Jose (non Shelby) K code car that was on eBay a couple of years back. The Ford vin in the picture is around
60ish sequential numbers from the Ford number on 281. I would guess it is also close to yours on 6s296. I have included pictures of the vin tag, engine build date and a shot of the C4 hipo tag all from the same car that was on eBay. If I can ever figure out how to recreate a proper looking tag for 281 I will use all the info on the tag in the picture. Hope this helps.
Karl 6S281
There was a guy in Colorado that could do Ford VIN and part tags. He had the proper letter set. I googled an couldn't find him. Maybe a check of Hemmings may turn up something.
That would certainly be nice. There's a company that makes them and has a listing on eBay, they look just look wrong. Maybe in a pinch. I have contacted Kevin Marty's company and ask them to please start making them, no word yet.
Many try and stamp the numbers and letters or use the wrong fonts. Stamping them often deforms the plate
Quote from: Karguy on December 05, 2020, 06:52:47 PM
That would certainly be nice. There's a company that makes them and has a listing on eBay, they look just look wrong. Maybe in a pinch. I have contacted Kevin Marti's company and ask them to please start making them, no word yet.
Finding one of these with the right font is the key.
Very cool
Here's an example of the one that is available on eBay. It looks like they have nailed the actual shape and edge of the tag but the font is way off, actually it's just too clear and too good. The original tags had a very faint imprint. The eBay item number is 254661855426
Quote from: Karguy on December 06, 2020, 12:32:58 AM
Here's an example of the one that is available on eBay. It looks like they have nailed the actual shape and edge of the tag but the font is way off, actually it's just too clear and too good. The original tags had a very faint imprint. The eBay item number is 254661855426
The original tag below isn't too faint. The letters are slightly bolder on the repro however.
The tagedge shape should have a flat area on both ends where the metal ribbon was run through the impression die then each individual tag would be snapped off. This was likely the origin of corrosion growth across the tag if anywhere. Making the dies to create a faithful tag shape with the fatigue tear away areas would be relatively easy, IMHO. The impression dies are just not something I could do in my simple shop.
Here is another picture of the tags I talked about on eBay. Notice the detail to the tag shape, much better than the first picture. The font is still very wrong. If this manufacturer could correct the font, he'd really have some thing worth buying.
The bottom tag looks to have may been "cut" on a CNC machine and not stamped.
Quote from: Blackcar on December 06, 2020, 03:51:27 PM
The bottom tag looks to have may been "cut" on a CNC machine and not stamped.
You can tell it is not stamped by the patterns inside the letter and number depressions. It seems like a nominal price to pay compared to the alternative which is nothing. I suppose you could always wait until he makes it closer or try and find a original for sale. I don't think too many have come up for sale in the last 30 plus years that I have been keeping track.
477 is a 5J date.
Quote from: Karguy on December 06, 2020, 02:49:37 PM
Here is another picture of the tags I talked about on eBay. Notice the detail to the tag shape, much better than the first picture. The font is still very wrong. If this manufacturer could correct the font, he'd really have some thing worth buying.
Hi all,
Both tags are mine. The top tag is original to a HiPo C4 that I own. The bottom tag was purchased off a popular auction site and modified by me to try an match the shape. The seller matched my tag as far as information after I asked if he could make one. I have suggested to the seller to lighten up the stamping, but yet to see an improved example. He told me that buyers of his other tags preferred to see nice crisp well defined stampings so they can be easily read. The photo is also mine.
The lower image is the tag aged some. It is the best available at this time.
Cory
Quote from: 6s1640 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:47 AM
Quote from: Karguy on December 06, 2020, 02:49:37 PM
Here is another picture of the tags I talked about on eBay. Notice the detail to the tag shape, much better than the first picture. The font is still very wrong. If this manufacturer could correct the font, he'd really have some thing worth buying.
Hi all,
Both tags are mine. The top tag is original to a HiPo C4 that I own. The bottom tag was purchased off a popular auction site and modified by me to try an match the shape. The seller matched my tag as far as information after I asked if he could make one. I have suggested to the seller to lighten up the stamping, but yet to see an improved example. He told me that buyers of his other tags preferred to see nice crisp well defined stampings so they can be easily read. The photo is also mine.
The lower image is the tag aged some. It is the best available at this time.
Cory
Cory, I don't believe that the manufacturer of your new tag will be able to replicate the faint stamped characters of an original tag because his process involves machining the characters not stamping the characters. I suppose it might be possible to use a cutting tool with a more shallow angle and not plunge the tool as deep into the metal but I think that the machining marks would still be visible.
I'm afraid that you're stuck with a tag that looks too good.
Frank
So close you can't tell is better but it is nice that there is a alternative that is as close as the examples posted to replace the often lost during rebuild tags. At least for trying to preserve a historical look standpoint IMO.
Quote from: gt350hr on December 07, 2020, 02:18:44 PM
477 is a 5J date.
Randy, is 5J the engine build stamp date?
I never recorded that from 6S283, but #283 other data aligns in sequence with #281 and other cars I've recorded,
and lines up with #281 comments as previously noted.
regards
jim p
Quote from: 6R07mi on December 08, 2020, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: gt350hr on December 07, 2020, 02:18:44 PM
477 is a 5J date.
Randy, is 5J the engine build stamp date?
I never recorded that from 6S283, but #283 other data aligns in sequence with #281 and other cars I've recorded,
and lines up with #281 comments as previously noted.
regards
jim p
That is the date on the trans tag.