Brian forwarded this earlier,
http://www.legendarymotorcar.com/inventory/1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-1847.aspx?LMC_eMailer=1
1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500
1 Of Only 29 Factory Built With This Color Combination
Highly Desirable Factory Nightmist Blue Metallic
Ultra Rare Factory Parchment Décor Interior
Factory 428ci Dual Quad Police Interceptor
Factory 4 Speed Transmission
Fully And Completely Documented
No Expense Spared Rotisserie Restored
Considered To Be The Most Collectible Combination
LMC is very proud to offer for sale this 1967 Shelby GT500
As the muscle era was heating up Chevrolet released the all new Camaro, which called for an upgrade to the Mustang to compete. As with before, Carroll Shelby was called upon to ready to boost Mustangs performance reputation. For 1967 Shelby GT500 was the first time a 428 engine would be available in a Mustang, which gac. This beautiful 1967 Shelby GT500 is a terrific example of the model. To some it's the ultimate muscle car/grand tourer, others love it for being the first Mustang to be powered by the 428. While many others just love it for the beautiful, powerful styling and Legendary name associated with it. Whether you're a collector or enthusiast, and whatever your reasoning, there is no denying that they are one of the most iconic muscle cars of all time.
This GT-500 completed the assembly process 01/13/1967 and was sent to Sanders Motor Company in Raleigh, North Carolina. It arrived at the dealer appearing as many believe a Shelby should have, factory Dark 'Nightmist Blue" Metallic with ultra rare factory Parchment deluxe interior, the same livery the car features today. Powered by the 428 cubic inch Police Interceptor motor with twin 4bbl carburetors and a factory ordered 4-speed Top Loader transmission. Making this car even more special are the other options such as the famous and very collectible "Inboard" headlights, Magstar wheels with Speedway bias ply tires, fold down rear seat, power steering, power front disc brakes, factory roll bar with shoulder harnesses, under dash gauges, 140 mile speedo and 8,000 rpm tach and interior décor group. This car has been the recipient of a no expense spared rotisserie restoration to a show quality condition. The undercarriage has been detailed with factory style red oxide primer, overspray and paint daubs.
This Shelby GT-500 it is of course listed in the Shelby Registry and comes with complete bulletproof documentation from Marti Auto Works. The body and paint showing spectacularly well, ready to be shown or enjoyed as part of a collection. Beautiful, detailed restoration, fully documented and well equipped are all the elements making this an extremely desirable collector car, add to this the history of being an original Shelby GT-500 and you have one of the most desirable and sought-after muscle cars of all time. Only 29 factory Nightmist Blue with parchment interior cars were ever built, this is certainly a unique opportunity as how many can be left today?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w281/2112ford/GT500%20Nightmist%20over%20parchment.png) (http://s179.photobucket.com/user/2112ford/media/GT500%20Nightmist%20over%20parchment.png.html)
Hey!!!
I think this was Powell's old car #0624.
Sure looks nice in the photos!
simply stunning vehicle
If it is 0624, what do you guys know of this car? Thanks
Not to sure about the exhaust system ?
GT500 decals too.
Shouldn't it have the chrome exhaust valence trim?
Quote from: rcgt350 on July 27, 2018, 01:31:34 AM
Not to sure about the exhaust system ?
GT500 decals too.
Quote from: 557 on July 27, 2018, 05:57:45 AM
Shouldn’t it have the chrome exhaust valence trim?
a few details...
If my records are accurate there were only 16 Nightmist blue Parchment Interior that came with Thermactor.
Shouldn't it have steel framed hood/deck lid as well?
Bigger issue to me would be the missing smog. Hard to find items that changed during production can take some time and money to get right.
Quote from: gt350cs on July 27, 2018, 10:16:53 AM
If my records are accurate there were only 16 Nightmist blue Parchment Interior that came with Thermactor.
I show the same numbers, but the 16 is with a 4-speed and Thermactor
(Add 8 more with an auto and Thermactor for a total of 24 with the Thermactor system)
Quote from: gt350cs on July 27, 2018, 10:39:24 AM
Bigger issue to me would be the missing smog. Hard to find items that changed during production can take some time and money to get right.
. Just curious,was smog required on a car originally sold in N.C.?
Most likely smog was not required, as I see only this one other car having factory smog going to North Carolina number 922. All others are non-smog cars.
Quote from: 557 on July 27, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: gt350cs on July 27, 2018, 10:39:24 AM
Bigger issue to me would be the missing smog. Hard to find items that changed during production can take some time and money to get right.
. Just curious,was smog required on a car originally sold in N.C.?
If a car was already built and had smog (like most of them were done) sending it to a state that didn't require smog because the engine or paint interior combination was requested by the dealer was considered no harm no foul by SA.
I wonder why LMC never gives the car # of their Shelby Mustangs.
I don't know why LMC does not provide the VIN numbers. Educated buyers would definitely want to know that information.
Out of respect for LMC, I do not post the VIN, even if I can determine the number. If others choose to post such information, that is up to them.
Bob is very right that the smog cars went to whoever needed the particular options available. Also many non-smog cars were sold in California I believe.
Quote from: 2112 on July 27, 2018, 12:40:52 PM
I wonder why LMC never gives the car # of their Shelby Mustangs.
Might stimulate even more discussion of the cars which would be good for them. Or get someone to call and at least inquire about the car by other means. Just a couple of possibilities.
As a side response not aware of any documentation of a non-Thermactor car being sold in CA as a new car. Not sure of any dealership that would have wanted to risk that - even though the fines are much less than today
Jeff,
Though most cars delivered to California dealers were smog cars, I do know that some recorded as being delivered did not indicate the proper Model type. I am not sure of the disposition of the cars but records indicate a number of VIN that are not smog going to several California dealers. I think I came up with the number approaching a dozen or so.
I car only assume that these cars were sold in California.
Perhaps someone has more information.
Dennis
How would a non-smog car pass inspection when new in california. Didnt they have those smog inspection shops in california back in the late 60s?
Quote from: Special Ed on July 29, 2018, 09:00:29 AM
How would a non-smog car pass inspection when new in california. Didnt they have those smog inspection shops in california back in the late 60s?
. Until the mid 80s a smog check in Cali.merely comprised "sniffing"the exhaust output..If it was clean you passed...Then they began an under hood inspection of all relevant smog components...If anything was missing you failed...Guess how I know....
I had read in the registry that this car was on Ebay at one time and was listed as a Basket Case. Does anyone have knowledge of what that was all about? Thanks
Quote from: gt350cs on July 27, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
I don't know why LMC does not provide the VIN numbers. Educated buyers would definitely want to know that information.
Out of respect for LMC, I do not post the VIN, even if I can determine the number. If others choose to post such information, that is up to them.
Bob is very right that the smog cars went to whoever needed the particular options available. Also many non-smog cars were sold in California I believe.
I recall a discussion on LMC in the past relating to why they don't list the Shelby VIN number in their ads. I think we concluded it was a marketing / sales ploy to entice potential buyer to call them and discuss the cars in person. I suppose if the car advertised doesn't fit the buyers needs they could pitch another car or look for something that is a better fit. Nothing devious, just an attempt to build on their client base.
I would think it would subject them to many wasted time emails & calls from enthusiasts just trying to find out which car it is.
Quote from: Richstang on August 01, 2018, 11:06:08 AM
Quote from: gt350cs on July 27, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
I don't know why LMC does not provide the VIN numbers. Educated buyers would definitely want to know that information.
Out of respect for LMC, I do not post the VIN, even if I can determine the number. If others choose to post such information, that is up to them.
Bob is very right that the smog cars went to whoever needed the particular options available. Also many non-smog cars were sold in California I believe.
I recall a discussion on LMC in the past relating to why they don't list the Shelby VIN number in their ads. I think we concluded it was a marketing / sales ploy to entice potential buyer to call them and discuss the cars in person. I suppose if the car advertised doesn't fit the buyers needs they could pitch another car or look for something that is a better fit. Nothing devious, just an attempt to build on their client base.
I would think it would subject them to many wasted time emails & calls from enthusiasts just trying to find out which car it is.
Rich,
When you're a salesman, any interest in your product would be not be considered a waste of time I suppose. Like you said, there is always the chance to flip a potential customer from one car to another. It's actually pretty smart on their part, just annoying for us.
Older pics of #624 from NVSAAC website.
http://nvsaac.com/gallery/1967_shelby_gt500_21.htm
(http://nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/1967/500/67_500_624_b.jpg)
(http://nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/1967/500/67_500_624_g.jpg)
(http://nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/1967/500/67_500_624_h.jpg)
So is the VIN stamped wrong or is the interior listed wrong? I have #624 VIN as 67402F2U00624 in my records, which would agree with what looks like the proper interior.
Does anyone have more information on this?
Thanks,
Dennis
According to the registrar, the VIN plate was indeed stamped incorrectly. Records show the car to be Parchment inside.
VIN's Not Advertised....
For years and years I never advertised the VIN for cars I was selling.
There's a couple reasons
First, I'd receive many inquires via email asking for the VIN from buyers all over the country.
However, most of these "buyers" just wanted to look it up in the registry.
I always figured if you're really interested in purchasing you would just call and discuss the car.
Second, many of the vehicles I've had were projects and in need of restoration. Some are worse than others.
Many new owners didn't want the VIN and photos of their car on the internet.
I became somewhat sympathetic to that argument.
It's like photos of your wife before your were married floating around...(if you know what I mean)
I've never refused to give a VIN of a car I've owned.
You just might have to call and ask for it.
Just my .02
Bret
Quote from: gt350cs on August 01, 2018, 01:48:57 PM
So is the VIN stamped wrong or is the interior listed wrong? I have #624 VIN as 67402F2U00624 in my records, which would agree with what looks like the proper interior.
Does anyone have more information on this?
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis you're one step ahead of me. I was about to thank Jeff "67_1183" for posting the photos and link when I noticed that "A" trim too!
The DSO 84-2538 is listed having cars with parchment "U" trim, but that "A" in the VIN raised the question.
Curiously there are 4 other cars in this "parchment interior "U" DSO noted with Black "A" trim?
67402F5A00504
67402F8A00608
67402F8A00617
67402F8A00621
Does anyone know if Dave M. or the previous registrar addressed those as possible VIN stamp errors too?
Edit 2019-2-1. All 4 VINs above were in fact Parchment "U" trim per Dave
Lots of VIN errors on the 67 Shelbys.
Quote from: Richstang on August 01, 2018, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: gt350cs on August 01, 2018, 01:48:57 PM
So is the VIN stamped wrong or is the interior listed wrong? I have #624 VIN as 67402F2U00624 in my records, which would agree with what looks like the proper interior.
Does anyone have more information on this?
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis you're one step ahead of me. I was about to thank Jeff "67_1183" for posting the photos and link when I noticed that "A" trim too!
The DSO 84-2538 is listed having cars with parchment "U" trim, but that "A" in the VIN raised the question.
Curiously there are 4 other cars in this "parchment interior "U" DSO noted with Black "A" trim?
67402F5A00504
67402F8A00608
67402F8A00617
67402F8A00621
Does anyone know if Dave M. or the previous registrar addressed those as possible VIN stamp errors too?
I suppose for the most accurate info it would be best to ask Dave M directly . He responds when emailed. FYI he has been registrar for many decades now. I don't even know if there was a previous registrar.
Quote from: capecodmustang.com on August 01, 2018, 01:56:26 PM
VIN's Not Advertised....
For years and years I never advertised the VIN for cars I was selling.
There's a couple reasons
First, I'd receive many inquires via email asking for the VIN from buyers all over the country.
However, most of these "buyers" just wanted to look it up in the registry.
I always figured if you're really interested in purchasing you would just call and discuss the car.
Second, many of the vehicles I've had were projects and in need of restoration. Some are worse than others.
Many new owners didn't want the VIN and photos of their car on the internet.
I became somewhat sympathetic to that argument.
It's like photos of your wife before your were married floating around...(if you know what I mean)
I've never refused to give a VIN of a car I've owned.
You just might have to call and ask for it.
Just my .02. Totally agree with Bret
Bret
Quote from: capecodmustang.com on August 01, 2018, 01:56:26 PM
VIN's Not Advertised....
For years and years I never advertised the VIN for cars I was selling.
There's a couple reasons
First, I'd receive many inquires via email asking for the VIN from buyers all over the country.
However, most of these "buyers" just wanted to look it up in the registry.
I always figured if you're really interested in purchasing you would just call and discuss the car.
Second, many of the vehicles I've had were projects and in need of restoration. Some are worse than others.
Many new owners didn't want the VIN and photos of their car on the internet.
I became somewhat sympathetic to that argument.
It's like photos of your wife before your were married floating around...(if you know what I mean)
I've never refused to give a VIN of a car I've owned.
You just might have to call and ask for it.
Just my .02
Bret
Of course this sentiment is more relevant to basket case or damaged cars then it is to undamaged restored cars.
Quote from: Richstang on July 26, 2018, 11:03:42 PM
Hey!!!
I think this was Powell's old car #0624.
Sure looks nice in the photos!
General Powell?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2018, 06:42:28 PM
Of course this sentiment is more relevant to basket case or damaged cars then it is to undamaged restored cars.
Guess it depends on what the pictures show ;)
Plenty of discussion of "restored" cars over the years here and plenty of observations, comments and such that would not be seen as positives looking back or at the time.
IMHO just depends on the car.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2018, 06:30:09 PM
I don't even know if there was a previous registrar.
George Rutledge is what I remember. Sound familiar to others?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2018, 06:30:09 PM
Quote from: Richstang on August 01, 2018, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: gt350cs on August 01, 2018, 01:48:57 PM
So is the VIN stamped wrong or is the interior listed wrong? I have #624 VIN as 67402F2U00624 in my records, which would agree with what looks like the proper interior.
Does anyone have more information on this?
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis you're one step ahead of me. I was about to thank Jeff "67_1183" for posting the photos and link when I noticed that "A" trim too!
The DSO 84-2538 is listed having cars with parchment "U" trim, but that "A" in the VIN raised the question.
Curiously there are 4 other cars in this "parchment interior "U" DSO noted with Black "A" trim?
67402F5A00504
67402F8A00608
67402F8A00617
67402F8A00621
Does anyone know if Dave M. or the previous registrar addressed those as possible VIN stamp errors too?
I suppose for the most accurate info it would be best to ask Dave M directly . He responds when emailed. FYI he has been registrar for many decades now. I don't even know if there was a previous registrar.
I know Dave has been the registrar for a long time. I recall reading about the person before him, but have no idea how far back that was.
He is certainly the best source for getting accurate info on the Shelby VIN questions, I just try not to bother him too often.
Just want to add to Bob's comment about Dave M. He has always been very helpful and has helped me more times than I can count. The more I study the information in the latest Registry, the more I find needing to be corrected. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate all the effort that was put into the Registry and it is the BEST source of information readily available to all. But there are still some errors to be found such as this VIN plate stamping we are discussing.
While I am at it, I want to give a shout out to Nancy. She too has always been a great help and source of information.
I try not to be a pest, but at times I just can't help it. By the way if you haven't purchased the copies of the paperwork on your cars remember that they have many documents available at a fair price as do other Registrars.
These people work very hard for very little recognition. By the way Bob has been more than a help to me in the past as well. His knowledge about these cars is amazing.
Thanks to all that contribute to keeping us on track... pun intended!
Dennis
Blast from the past.
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/193-010818200836.jpeg)
Hackensack!
Good thing that was 38 years ago, or my next visit in that north eastern part of the state would have had me knocking on his front door.
Quote from: J_Speegle on August 01, 2018, 06:58:00 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2018, 06:42:28 PM
Of course this sentiment is more relevant to basket case or damaged cars then it is to undamaged restored cars.
Guess it depends on what the pictures show ;)
Plenty of discussion of "restored" cars over the years here and plenty of observations, comments and such that would not be seen as positives looking back or at the time.
IMHO just depends on the car.
That why I said "undamaged restored cars" . ;)
Quote from: Richstang on August 01, 2018, 08:15:19 PM
Hackensack!
"And my machine, she's a dud, out stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Jersey"