Hi all,
I have a question about my early 67 Shelby GT500.
My car was ordered on 11/08/66 and realised from San Jose 12/28/66.
Completed by Shelby 1/25/67 and shipped 1/30/67.
My question is:
My engine block casting date code is 6H19 and assembly date of the engine is 6J28 9. The chylinder heads casting date is 6J 13 and the other one is 6J8.
My engine is a correct date code for my car please?
Thanks Kyle.
I would say yes................
Quote from: capecodmustang.com on December 03, 2021, 06:18:53 AM
I would say yes................
So normally the engine cast date how months they were early for the car?
I checked (3) 67 GT500 unrestored cars and the engine is is not early 3 months.
How much week's or month's the engines were early for the early 67 Shelby GT500?
Kyle.
To me, no. It is not original to the chassis.
It may in fact be the reality that the time period between the casting dates on the block and the installation in the chassis vary according to the time of the year and how busy the assembly line is, but I wouldn't count on that. I would expect the block to be the largest determining factor since the heads often don't even match each other.
I would expect that block to have a casting date of around 11/31/66 or 6L31 (three to four weeks before installation) with an engine assembly date about ten days to two weeks later.
6H is August of 66 which to me is way to much of a stretch.
However, that's just what I would EXPECT to find and if yours is original to the car, then "it is what it is".
In my discussions with people that I consider to be experts on this subject, unless you are going to show in "thoroughbred" where all parts are expected to be original assembly line, then it doesn't matter.
You just need to be period correct and the only place you would be getting into controversy would be if you were advertising the car for sale as all original. The engine to me, does not likely seem to be original to that build.
The only other thought I have is "Shelby" production generally speaking started much later then other "Ford" production. Ford production for the 67 model year starting somewhere around the middle of August of '66. Shelby's around the end of November, early December.
Then you need to look at what do we mean by "Period Correct" for a '67 Shelby v 67 "Ford". I'd interpret that as that engine NOT being period correct for a '67 Shelby GT500 because no Shelbys were built yet, but if no one is going to look at it under the 'glass of a "Thoroughbred", then who cares?
Complicating the matter further is that it is the 289's that have chassis serial numbers stamped into them, not 428's. So actually then you couldn't prove one way or the other that the engine was original to the chassis, just that it is Period Correct.
In addition, if THAT engine SUDDENLY appeared with a chassis number stamped into it, it would be screaming "counterfeit".
That's just my take on the subject but remember when you go to sell the car, others are not going to be kind to you on your description.
What are the date codes on the Distributor, Carbs, & exhaust manifolds ?.....that will help
If you are going to look at other "bolt on's" for dates, I'd look at the bell housing and transmission for both casting dates and the chassis # in the transmission.
IF you in fact had a Q code Thunderbird in there that was swapped in, I'd EXPECT other bolt ons to be transferred from the broken engine but all of a sudden if they have December '66 date codes on them, that would just be the nails in the coffin of it not being the original "long block".
It's really only the last few years that there is enough evidence to show the relevance of the casting dates. I doubt if a swap was done 20 or 30 years ago, anyone would pay attention to things like the block or heads date codes?
Quote from: Kyle on December 03, 2021, 06:07:08 AM
Hi all,
I have a question about my early 67 Shelby GT500.
My car was ordered on 11/08/66 and realised from San Jose 12/28/66.
Completed by Shelby 1/25/67 and shipped 1/30/67.
My question is:
My engine block casting date code is 6H19 and assembly date of the engine is 6J28 9. The chylinder heads casting date is 6J 13 and the other one is 6J8.
My engine is a correct date code for my car please?
Thanks Kyle.
The very early 67 GT 500's could precede assembly date at San Jose by up to 5 months. As production continued the dates got closer to each other.
Dave
Quote from: GT350DAVE on December 03, 2021, 10:30:21 AM
Quote from: Kyle on December 03, 2021, 06:07:08 AM
Hi all,
I have a question about my early 67 Shelby GT500.
My car was ordered on 11/08/66 and realised from San Jose 12/28/66.
Completed by Shelby 1/25/67 and shipped 1/30/67.
My question is:
My engine block casting date code is 6H19 and assembly date of the engine is 6J28 9. The chylinder heads casting date is 6J 13 and the other one is 6J8.
My engine is a correct date code for my car please?
Thanks Kyle.
The very early 67 GT 500's could precede assembly date at San Jose by up to 5 months. As production continued the dates got closer to each other.
Dave
I've heard that before and am not questioning you but how much data do you have on that claim?
Those 428's sound more like '66 production left overs.
We have been inputting engine dates from owners for many years for both the GT 500's and GT 350's.
Dave
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 03, 2021, 07:59:09 AM
To me, no. It is not original to the chassis.
It may in fact be the reality that the time period between the casting dates on the block and the installation in the chassis vary according to the time of the year and how busy the assembly line is, but I wouldn't count on that. I would expect the block to be the largest determining factor since the heads often don't even match each other.
I would expect that block to have a casting date of around 11/31/66 or 6L31 (three to four weeks before installation) with an engine assembly date about ten days to two weeks later.
6H is August of 66 which to me is way to much of a stretch.
However, that's just what I would EXPECT to find and if yours is original to the car, then "it is what it is".
In my discussions with people that I consider to be experts on this subject, unless you are going to show in "thoroughbred" where all parts are expected to be original assembly line, then it doesn't matter.
You just need to be period correct and the only place you would be getting into controversy would be if you were advertising the car for sale as all original. The engine to me, does not likely seem to be original to that build.
The only other thought I have is "Shelby" production generally speaking started much later then other "Ford" production. Ford production for the 67 model year starting somewhere around the middle of August of '66. Shelby's around the end of November, early December.
Then you need to look at what do we mean by "Period Correct" for a '67 Shelby v 67 "Ford". I'd interpret that as that engine NOT being period correct for a '67 Shelby GT500 because no Shelbys were built yet, but if no one is going to look at it under the 'glass of a "Thoroughbred", then who cares?
Complicating the matter further is that it is the 289's that have chassis serial numbers stamped into them, not 428's. So actually then you couldn't prove one way or the other that the engine was original to the chassis, just that it is Period Correct.
In addition, if THAT engine SUDDENLY appeared with a chassis number stamped into it, it would be screaming "counterfeit".
That's just my take on the subject but remember when you go to sell the car, others are not going to be kind to you on your description.
Thanks for all the information.I am restoring this car and I need to make it with most parts original and all parts dated correctly.
Kyle
Quote from: Wedgeman on December 03, 2021, 08:51:41 AM
What are the date codes on the Distributor, Carbs, & exhaust manifolds ?.....that will help
Thanks for helping me.
One of the carb date code is 6B1 but the other carb date code definitely is not correct date code 382.
The distributor date code is 6K31.
The exhaust manifolds 6J21 and the other one is 6J14.
Kyle
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 03, 2021, 09:02:14 AM
If you are going to look at other "bolt on's" for dates, I'd look at the bell housing and transmission for both casting dates and the chassis # in the transmission.
IF you in fact had a Q code Thunderbird in there that was swapped in, I'd EXPECT other bolt ons to be transferred from the broken engine but all of a sudden if they have December '66 date codes on them, that would just be the nails in the coffin of it not being the original "long block".
It's really only the last few years that there is enough evidence to show the relevance of the casting dates. I doubt if a swap was done 20 or 30 years ago, anyone would pay attention to things like the block or heads date codes?
Thanks again.
My car is Automatic c6 transmission I think that they never had a chassis numbers.
Here is a photo of my transmission date code.
Looks like February 28 1966.
Quote from: Royce Peterson on December 03, 2021, 02:35:00 PM
Looks like February 28 1966.
Ok thanks.
It is not correct date code for the car?
Kyle
Quote from: GT350DAVE on December 03, 2021, 01:16:13 PM
We have been inputting engine dates from owners for many years for both the GT 500's and GT 350's.
Dave
Dave thanks for the information.
I saw a shelby 67 #253 on a website and the engine cast date code is 6J24.
The car order received 11/08/66 realeasd from San Jose 12/15/66.
So this car is earlier than my car but the engine cast date is later than my car.
Quote from: Kyle on December 03, 2021, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: Royce Peterson on December 03, 2021, 02:35:00 PM
Looks like February 28 1966.
Ok thanks.
It is not correct date code for the car?
Kyle
Wow! You can't ignore what Dave Mathews just said of the car. I know him and he wouldn't make a blanket statement like that without data to back it up, so he's got to have a whole lot more then just a few early cars to compare engine build dates to.
Even so, I have issue with there being such a spread in dates between the long block and the bolt on components. That SUGGESTS to me that the long block has been replaced.
If all of them were close to the block casting date I'd more readily accept that explanation.
When the engine was assembled. it was put together so it was ready to be installed in a chassis. That would include the exhaust manifolds and distributor. The transmission is way out of line so I'd suspect that is not the original?
I would need someone else, like J.Speegle, to explain these discrepancies to me as to how the distributor is November and the short block August and be an original build?
I wouldn't go and panic over this yet. I'm thinking that it is entirely possible that the long blocks on the early cars are basically left over '66s and needed final assembly?
428 Mustangs in 67 can't be big sellers and I would think most of them were T-birds and LTD's, etc?
Here's what I think the issue is going to be. The Registrar may indeed have been gathering data on the engine blocks and maybe heads but did he do the distributors and exhaust manifolds too?
Those items are suggesting to me an engine build in late November or early December which is what I would expect to see as original.
If you think the GT 500 motors are out of wack, you should look at the components for the early 67 GT 350's.
I only collected block and head date codes for the GT 500's. Keep in mind, that my statements are only for the very early cars and as production progressed, the dates became much closer to the San Jose assembly dates.
Never say never with a 67.
Dave
I would think anything dated August '66 or later as too late to be '66 production, leftover or otherwise. More likely intended for early '67 production?
I don't know much about the '67 Shelby GT500 but the case being made that early does seem odd. It likely got exchanged at an AAMCO or other transmission rebuild shop sometime in the car's past.
I have read (but don't know) that 1966 C6 transmission cases are different in some way from later ones. Perhaps someone here would know?
Quote from: Kyle on December 03, 2021, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: Royce Peterson on December 03, 2021, 02:35:00 PM
Looks like February 28 1966.
Ok thanks.
It is not correct date code for the car?
Kyle
Thanks a lot for this information.
Shelbydoug I was referring not correct about the transmission date code not the engine date code.
Dave there are early shelby 67 GT500's that have an engine dated 5 months earlier?
I'm not shure about my distributor date code, one of my carb date code if they are a correct date code for my car?
Quote from: Royce Peterson on December 03, 2021, 04:45:26 PM
I don't know much about the '67 Shelby GT500 but the case being made that early does seem odd. It likely got exchanged at an AAMCO or other transmission rebuild shop sometime in the car's past.
I have read (but don't know) that 1966 C6 transmission cases are different in some way from later ones. Perhaps someone here would know?
Quote from: Kyle on December 03, 2021, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: Royce Peterson on December 03, 2021, 02:35:00 PM
Looks like February 28 1966.
Ok thanks.
It is not correct date code for the car?
Kyle
Ok thanks Royce,
Even me I don't know if it is a correct date code. Most likely February is early for my car.
Someone know what should date code need's to be for my car please?
There are EARLY GT 500's with dates on their blocks 5 months before their assembly date at San Jose. I haven't collected automatic transmission dates but have seen components on the early GT 350 motors that date even earlier than the 5 months. Cylinder heads in particular.
Dave
Ok thanks Dave,
So my engine block and chylinder heads dates codes looks to be correct for my car ?
My transmission date code date code is more than 5 months before the car.
Dave,
What early 67 Shelby's vin numbers did you saw with an engine 5 months earlier for the car please?
So I will have more idea please.
Thanks Kyle.
I have 3 so far. All early. I do not give out Vins. especially on a public forum. Vins are confidential unless permission is granted by an owner.
Dave
Ok Dave,
But my car makes sense that it has an engine cast date 6H19 and assembly date 6J28 9 please?
It looks good to me.
Dave
Ok thanks for everything Dave.
I noticed that crankshaft damper date code is 6K/66 October and the dualpoint is 6K31.
What is the best engine date code for my car is please?
Casting date 6K with an asembly date late 6L or Casting date 6L with an asembly date early 6M ?
The BK carb date code is 6B1 so it's December.
The BJ was replaced.
Thanks Kyle.
Quote from: Kyle on December 07, 2021, 02:40:23 PM
I noticed that crankshaft damper date code is 6K/66 October and the dualpoint is 6K31.
What is the best engine date code for my car is please?
Casting date 6K with an asembly date late 6L or Casting date 6L with an asembly date early 6M ?
The BK carb date code is 6B1 so it's December.
The BJ was replaced.
Thanks Kyle.
I would say that you are correct. 6K or 6L.
Although there may be some supporting evidence that your block may have special circumstances and accepted as correct, it is not what anyone would expect to find.
With all due respect to everyone involved, three cars out of 1,200 does not make enough of a pattern to prove anything.
If it were say, 12 or more with all very similar casting and assembly dates, then that's a better situation.
The decision is entirely up to you to decide if anything even needs to consider changing to an EXPECTED date.
What Dave says about '67s is knowledge learned from experience in the field. It is a change over model year in so many ways and some screwy stuff went on which tends to add to the absolute uniqueness of the '67 Shelbys.
Never say never is a very fair criticism of the '67s.
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 07, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
With all due respect to everyone involved, three cars out of 1,200 does not make enough of a pattern to prove anything.
If it were say, 12 or more with all very similar casting and assembly dates, then that's a better situation.
For the conversation, don't think you can include the total numbers of a model produced when your focusing on just early production.
Also I think the focus is on "possibility" verses "certainties" for lack of better words at the moment.
For the month of December 66 I counted 208 GT500's so 20% of your 1200 number
Quote from: J_Speegle on December 07, 2021, 04:34:56 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 07, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
With all due respect to everyone involved, three cars out of 1,200 does not make enough of a pattern to prove anything.
If it were say, 12 or more with all very similar casting and assembly dates, then that's a better situation.
For the conversation, don't think you can include the total numbers of a model produced when your focusing on just early production.
Also I think the focus is on "possibility" verses "certainties" for lack of better words at the moment.
For the month of December 66 I counted 208 GT500's so 20% of your 1200 number
The OP is asking for the view points of those who post here.
To answer that honestly I have to put myself in the position of a potential buyer in this case and answer as to what I EXPECT to find on the car. It is my opinion, yes.
On a car like his NO ONE CAN PROVE that his car was built as it stands. All the Registrar can say is that IT
COULD HAVE BEEN built that way.
There is no other documentation available from Ford showing the use of very early long blocks being assembled far later then normally done. In addition if the three that Dave is referring to are randomly dated with no apparent pattern, that weakens the argument considerably.
I, ME, NEED FAR MORE then three cars that are SIMILAR and it isn't even me that is going to come eventually to the consensus that there are very early long blocks used in a build MONTHS later. It is the "Jury" that you need to PROVE IT to.
The reality is that you can't prove that it is original to the car and that it is not, just that MAYBE it could be. So as a buyer, I'd just stay away from it and look for a car that conforms to the norms.
THAT'S the honesty that the OP is prying at since apparently the OP is considering changing the long block for those reasons.
Personally if it were my car I wouldn't bother but I'd have to accept the fact that in the current environment of looking for "correctness" that at some point in the near future if I want to sell it as 100% correct, that statement will likely be challenged by buyers.
It's nothing personal to anyone J. That's just my logic on this situation and only one person in the peanut gallery here. Others are just as influential or uninfluential. :)
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 07, 2021, 06:00:14 PM
To answer that honestly I have to put myself in the position of a potential buyer in this case and answer as to what I EXPECT to find on the car. It is my opinion, yes.
On a car like his NO ONE CAN PROVE that his car was built as it stands. All the Registrar can say is that IT COULD HAVE BEEN built that way.
I, ME, NEED FAR MORE then three cars that are SIMILAR and it isn't even me that is going to come eventually to the consensus that there are very early long blocks used in a build MONTHS later. It is the "Jury" that you need to PROVE IT to.
The reality is that you can't prove that it is original to the car and that it is not, just that MAYBE it could be. So as a buyer, I'd just stay away from it and look for a car that conforms to the norms.
Can't argue with your stated points, especially since your referring to opinions, just trying to put the three examples where the span between the casting date and car build date was wider than usual that Dave made mention into context.
I do have six examples from December 66 built cars with the 428 engine maybe I'll post or make reference those in a follow up post
Well, this is not an argument. It's a discussion attempting to analyze accurately what happen in three notes when we need more to recognize the tune.
What we would need would be someone that worked in production at Ford to explain why the internal sourcing of the 428 engines fell out of the normal procedures.
Were there 67 428 Mustangs besides GT500's?
I'm not happy being the antagonist here. :(
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 07, 2021, 07:52:33 PM
Were there 67 428 Mustangs besides GT500's?
Don't believe you will find any records of such a car being built at one of the three car assembly plants