Not mine - I remember when they found this car
https://www.ebay.com/itm/235339975548?hash=item36cb5b0b7c:g:RS0AAOSwmglld6Vw&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8B3CGupuIj7JVd9HrMau1EhLXBUIcK9j4mkqUGyNyjX6icow9bkhqf4OQLrlOrz%2BKjlSMhrbeVgG%2B%2Fj0w4uuhapEtX4qQpmFJKTVsTV9624WSvRGJWCvKPcX%2BRalHWIevP%2B3su%2B%2FMXc7P2hQu35wLvl4P%2FB9LC1hC%2Bsq3JFAQa%2BYXKJWeg71uW8YWVaXL5IEFynJBe11FJM%2Bxp9UnDMCsXbiaON%2FZbkhY6sE6c%2FNGTxKLtyItvrUXphURihEluTLGUlwlgbocz5fn0Kh2kh4Uytno3j%2FwJOEEGMjOTa5wZop2U19ffYK6aulBawD%2FRR20g%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR46Ul-aNYw
My title is probably more appropriate
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=25303.0
Its not a Boss 302 prototype or a Shelby prototype, so I guess calling a "prototype" might be a stretch.
Engineering car might be a better description in my estimation
Kool car thats the one in our registry
I encourage anyone that is interested, ask the owner to post the build sheet. That will tell you a lot about the car.
😉
Quote from: stephen_becker on December 15, 2023, 11:52:30 AM
Not mine - I remember when they found this car
https://www.ebay.com/itm/235339975548?hash=item36cb5b0b7c:g:RS0AAOSwmglld6Vw&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8B3CGupuIj7JVd9HrMau1EhLXBUIcK9j4mkqUGyNyjX6icow9bkhqf4OQLrlOrz%2BKjlSMhrbeVgG%2B%2Fj0w4uuhapEtX4qQpmFJKTVsTV9624WSvRGJWCvKPcX%2BRalHWIevP%2B3su%2B%2FMXc7P2hQu35wLvl4P%2FB9LC1hC%2Bsq3JFAQa%2BYXKJWeg71uW8YWVaXL5IEFynJBe11FJM%2Bxp9UnDMCsXbiaON%2FZbkhY6sE6c%2FNGTxKLtyItvrUXphURihEluTLGUlwlgbocz5fn0Kh2kh4Uytno3j%2FwJOEEGMjOTa5wZop2U19ffYK6aulBawD%2FRR20g%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR46Ul-aNYw
Who is "They"? I knew of the car since 1984 right after second owner bought it off of the original owner. Car was never lost. Hit the snakebite around 1990-1 from 3rd owner. Then I believe George H bought it then. Traded it to someone in Indiana and I think then Bob Gaines got it. Then Billy. Never lost nor not known what it was even from the original owner when Jeff Plowman bought it off of him. who is "They"? watch video. ;D https://www.tiktok.com/@eshulman2/video/7305774213992860974
Once many many years ago someone from SAAC coined it best: it is a Shelby Vinned Boss 302.
Back years ago a well known shelby guy Gary Burke (RIP) from TN called me about this car and asked me if i would come down and look at it so i did and it was partly apart in his back yard under some pine trees i remember looking under the carpet and finding some odd snake center cap emblem decals and i knew it was a special car but we never had marti reports or and shelby invioces back then. I talked george huisman into buying it but he later resold it because back then we couldnt find much documentation.
Quote from: Special Ed on December 15, 2023, 02:24:04 PM
Back years ago a well known shelby guy Gary Burke (RIP) from TN called me about this car and asked me if i would come down and look at it so i did and it was partly apart in his back yard under some pine trees i remember looking under the carpet and finding some odd snake center cap emblem decals and i knew it was a special car but we never had marti reports or and shelby invioces back then. I talked george huisman into buying it but he later resold it because back then we couldnt find much documentation.
I talked to Gary Burke when it was in the snakebite and found out he bought it off of Jeff Plowman after Jeff moved back to Tn and went into the Coast Guard. Jeff knew it was unique when I first saw it and tried buying the Shelby wheels off of it for my 70 drag pack GT500 in 1984. He showed me the vin and that is when I tried to find out more about it and the only thing I got was Nick Zuk who worked for Ford was told a few were built. IIRC I gave George the original owner's name as I had it written down but that was early 90s. Back in the early 80s I bought the Standard guide to American cars 1946-1975. I studied that book like a Bible back when I was young and memorized all the rare engine codes especially Fords and mopars and saw what was rare and so forth. I still have the book. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/standard-catalog-of-american-cars-1946-1975/1448644/item/62061959/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=low_vol_f%2fm%2fs_standard_shopping_customer_aquisition&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=603452145786&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAj_CrBhD-ARIsAIiMxT_D_vLaZxIxMx6eu-CWJZoUuBysfmIn8Q2RXJ7ipwE4ODOzBLsDZzgaAg1JEALw_wcB#idiq=62061959&edition=64801142
9F02G482244
Unless it can be proven to be a restamp G= Boss 302 and 48 = Shelby. If it left the factory with regular Boss #02 sheet metal and later in life got the intended Shelby parts/fiberglass to finish it there is no difference to other cars that were sold before they were finished - like the Super Coupe.
This I call BS on and it leads me to the restamp ?. Ford accounting would have found the error. There was also probably a process where they handed you the keys and made sure you weren't driving off the lot with the wrong car.
This car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."
VIN # 9F02G482244
I have a question about this Car:
Since the 48 in the VIN denotes a SHELBY Mustang
The "G" in the VIN just denotes an Engine
That specific "G" code was only designated to "BOSS 302" Mustangs
Wouldn't it be correct to say that it is MORE Shelby than BOSS
Therefore it is the only Shelby with a Boss 302 Engine installed from the Factory?
I understand that it may not have had ALL the fiberglass parts day one.
But it was a development car, unfortunately the money or program ended and it never reached its maturity.
Wish I had it
Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of restamping anything.
I do not believe just because was sent to Shelby, it is a Shelby.
Personally, I believe if it was built as a Shelby by either Shelby Engineering or AOSmith then it is a Shelby. During the earlier years Shelby had Mustangs assigned to the company. That in itself does not make them "Shelbys". If you add the Shelby parts to them they are still not Shelbys.
I feel the car can not be documented as a 1969 Shelby even with the "48" code. It simply identifies were the car was sent. The notes on the build sheet identify its true configuration
The build sheet and IBM card documentation prove this position.
To say the program ended is not accurate, there were a lot of Shelbys built after this car arrived at Shelby Engineering
FYI
48 = identifies all Shelbys not used for any other Ford vehicles
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 15, 2023, 02:53:17 PM
9F02G482244
Unless it can be proven to be a restamp G= Boss 302 and 48 = Shelby. If it left the factory with regular Boss #02 sheet metal and later in life got the intended Shelby parts/fiberglass to finish it there is no difference to other cars that were sold before they were finished - like the Super Coupe.
This I call BS on and it leads me to the restamp ?. Ford accounting would have found the error. There was also probably a process where they handed you the keys and made sure you weren't driving off the lot with the wrong car.
This car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."
While I was only 24 back in 1984 I had owned a lot of 69-70 Mustangs up until that point. I know what a Ford VIN looks like back then and now. Nowhere do I recall a "5" being where the "4" was but if Jeff did what you said I'd think I'd be able to spot that(I had #2039 Boss 9 with a Q code vin so again, know Ford vins). I owned 0F02R482351 at the time and knew what the Shelby designation was at the time. Does Kevin Marti back up what you said? If sold with a "5" then the Marti report would show a 5 in that spot.
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 15, 2023, 03:11:25 PM
Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of restamping anything.
Nor am I but the ORIGINAL paperwork on the car is 58 not 48. Raises my curiosity to the point I would hire a good forensic guy to examine the VIN stampings before I threw down my money.
VIN # 9F02G482244
Information pulled from current Ebay add
VIN # 9F02G482244
Information pulled from current Ebay add
QuoteThis car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."
QuoteFord stated that the number ending in "44" was an in-house code for project cars
Quote
When Shelby cut ties with Ford, any program with his name on it went with him, so the Shelby / BOSS program was canceled, leaving this car abandoned at Ford. Ford intended to build 200 of the Boss GT 350s for the 1970 model year.
When I see information like this without any documents, it raises red flags.
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 15, 2023, 04:34:59 PM
QuoteThis car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."
QuoteFord stated that the number ending in "44" was an in-house code for project cars
Quote
When Shelby cut ties with Ford, any program with his name on it went with him, so the Shelby / BOSS program was canceled, leaving this car abandoned at Ford. Ford intended to build 200 of the Boss GT 350s for the 1970 model year.
When I see information like this without any documents, it raises red flags.
Partially true. When we interviewed Shelby in 1990/91 he made a statement "I was finally impressed that Ford made engines that I liked: the Boss 302 and Boss 429. I wanted to use them in my 1969 GT-350's and GT-500's. However, Ford's bean counters said no because of the costs"
Boys,
Disagree all you want, Its all about the numbers. The VIN clearly says "G" AND "48".
Is it? I can show you several GT500 KRs that have "01" body serial codes on their windshield tags.
Are they coupes? They are not.
The history and what actually happened is what is important. Is it unique? Yes it is unique.
Was it built as a Shelby? No it was not.
The paperwork proves that and there is a reason its not being shown.
Heres another example:Shelby had several 351 Cleveland cars. They do not have special engine codes. Does that mean they did not exist?
Or what if a car shows up with one of the unused 1969 Shelby Vins? Its not a Shelby, even though "the numbers" say it is. Its about the history, not the numbers
Wasn't it reported on SAACforum 1.0 that the build sheet actually states "not a shelby", or "not a shelby unit"? I remember something along those lines in the deep, dark recesses of my ever aging mind, but cannot remember with 100% certainty.
Bill
:D
I wonder what numbers were stamped on top shock towers under fender.
"9F02G482244" I have a photo
Quote from: crossboss on December 15, 2023, 05:08:14 PM
Boys,
Disagree all you want, Its all about the numbers. The VIN clearly says "G" AND "48".
I agree 100% - the intent of the production was clear, the fact it was never completed is irrelevant.
That's what he said also
48 = identifies all Shelbys not used for any other Ford vehicles
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 15, 2023, 03:10:10 PM
VIN # 9F02G482244
I have a question about this Car:
Since the 48 in the VIN denotes a SHELBY Mustang
The "G" in the VIN just denotes an Engine
That specific "G" code was only designated to "BOSS 302" Mustangs
Wouldn't it be correct to say that it is MORE Shelby than BOSS
Therefore it is the only Shelby with a Boss 302 Engine installed from the Factory?
I understand that it may not have had ALL the fiberglass parts day one.
But it was a development car, unfortunately the money or program ended and it never reached its maturity.
Wish I had it
So if the factory Ford paperwork says its not a Shelby, what was the "intention" ??
There could be several reasons Shelbys Engineers would want a "big suspension" car in their inventory. It might not be just about the motor.
I think these two pictures, as with other cars with questionable history, showing the car with it's original bodywork, before the quarters were replaced, tell the real tale.
(https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25303.0;attach=119412;image)
(https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25303.0;attach=119414;image)
Bill
Those rear quarters and taillight panel must have been changed in this photo? Seems odd.
We have barely mentioned the AOSmith records show no such conversion happened on this VIN.
Again, I am not bashing the car. Just asking for evidence to the contrary and asking for a chance to correct my statements if they are false.
I ask the "numbers" guys why does it have a 1970 painted hood and front spoiler?
Car was built the SAME day as my vert. 5-6-69. Again I read the dash vin and it was G48 and that got me on the investigation trail so to speak. 1984. Now in Mi it wouldn't be hard to get a title changed. My boss 429 title around that same time frame the dash vin was 9F02Q198868. Cops had to verify since the owner had his title for a few cars stolen and with a dirty windshield(car sat outside at Jeff Bietzel's shop) they put an "0" where the Q was. I walked into the SOS and provided my eminger report along with other info showing the 5th digit was the engine code and without the car present got the vin on the title changed to a Z while the dash said Q. I still have that paperwork in my possession 40 years later. a subsequent owner made up a new dash tag with a Z on it. It happens. #2039 black car. had the original KK sticker on the door when I bought the car. No doubt it was a B9 before I even got my paperwork from Lois.
Ford obviously intended your car to be a 428 car. According to the twisted logic of this thread there is no way it could have been a Boss 429 :o
Here is a thread and discussion on this vehicle from earlier this year.
Thanks
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=22221.msg169698#msg169698
Quote from: 67st102 on December 16, 2023, 08:29:12 AM
Here is a thread and discussion on this vehicle from earlier this year.
Thanks
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=22221.msg169698#msg169698
Many of car features I have read over the years are riddled with errors or just made up facts for the stories(of course usually by the owners). The authors are making a living writing as much as they can get published and don't have the time to really fact check or don't want to spend the time. That is for good authors writing books on a subject. Just my take shaking my head too many times on errors in a story.
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 15, 2023, 05:13:22 PM
Is it? I can show you several GT500 KRs that have "01" body serial codes on their windshield tags.
Are they coupes? They are not.
The history and what actually happened is what is important. Is it unique? Yes it is unique.
Was it built as a Shelby? No it was not.
The paperwork proves that and there is a reason its not being shown.
Heres another example:Shelby had several 351 Cleveland cars. They do not have special engine codes. Does that mean they did not exist?
Or what if a car shows up with one of the unused 1969 Shelby Vins? Its not a Shelby, even though "the numbers" say it is. Its about the history, not the numbers
Really? Numbers don't mean anything? And the 'intent' was very clear.
The pictures above show the car as a Boss in 1985. (Reply 28)
Quote from: stephen_becker on December 16, 2023, 09:10:33 AM
The registry shows Bob Gaines owned this car in 91/92/93 est. - so the question would be was it in BOSS 302 metal form when he owned it or was it in GT 350 fiberglass form?
Stephen I have posted 2 real pics I know EXIST of this car. 1 in 1985 When Jeff Plowman owned it and the other when George owned it. It was taken after I believe he painted it at the super Ford Nationals. It is actually sitting next to one of his Classic Design Concepts trucks. Here you go second pic is when George owned it taken at Milan Dragway-full tail light panel and RARE 69 B2 rear spoiler on car. NO FIBERGLASS. I'll answer for Bob-No fiberglass when he owned it nor was there evidence it had been mounted at one time after chem stripping. .
No evidence of Shelby side scoop and ducting. It has Boss quarter panels, not Mach 1 style as it should.
No evidence of tail light conversion.
No front fiberglass, no Shelby parts, not even the fog lamps.
If you still believe this story, you're not capable of paying attention.
Again, why is made to look like a 1970? Where's the build sheet? That will "prove if it had the Shelby conversion (all 1969 Shelbys have conversion package notations)
Prove me wrong and I will apologize. I just want the facts, not what you think it should be or what was "intended"
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/8-161223092804.jpeg)
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 16, 2023, 09:21:02 AM
No evidence of Shelby side scoop and ducting. It has Boss quarter panels, not Mach 1 style as it should.
No evidence of tail light conversion.
No front fiberglass, no Shelby parts, not even the fog lamps.
If you still believe this story, you're not capable of paying attention.
Again, why is made to look like a 1970? Where's the build sheet? That will "prove if it had the Shelby conversion (all 1969 Shelbys have conversion package notations)
My build sheet. Conv pkg noted as ref for those who do not have their own build sheets.
I just actually read the write up on the ebay ad. WTH? OK, I'm 64 and knew of the car at age 24. almost 40 years have passed but this is what I remember and I usually remember unique cars and experiences well. Jeff Plowman bought the car-well traded for it- off of the original owner and not his son as stated in the ad(could be wrong). I remember giving the original owner-person who bought the car "new"- to George circa 1990(?). George found out the OO was deceased and was looking for the son to try and find the original engine. I had the original owner's name only because Jeff had given it to me and I wrote it down. I bet somewhere in one of my folders or address books I still have that name. When Jeff bought it it had the Shelby vin and he wasn't a Mustang expert as the OO must have told him. No 5 in the Vin and Jeff had just purchased the car. So highly doubt he changed a vin. Jeff worked at a gas station working the night shift. I drove by that gas station every night going to work on midnights at where I worked at the time. Going by one night I see the Boss and do a u turn and stop to see it only for the Shelby wheels on it. Jeff comes out and shows me the car. I had to get to work but told him I'd like to inspect it more since i'm a Shelby guy. I did when I had more time which I did. I'd say I'm more in the know than many on this car just by dumb luck and geography. If he didn't work at that gas station I would have probably never saw the car until George brought it to SFNs after painting it.
In reference to incorectly stamped vins, I've seen several cars with incorrectly stamped windshield tags and body stamped vins ( I own a car myself with an incorrectly stamped engine code on the windshield tag only) but I must ask has anyone ever seen an incorrect vin stamp on every tag and stamping on the car? I have no interest in buying this car or even have a horse in this race. I'm just asking that question because I find it very hard to believe Ford could screw all of them up on the same car. That being said, Kevin Marti could probably shed light on this car if properly motivated or like Coralsnake says, just show the build sheet and get it over with assuming it still exists.
...somewhere I saw a reference to cars being built at Kar Kraft. I have not seen evidence they built any Shelbys. I am pretty sure I have some documents that specify exactly what they did to convert the 1969s.
If anyone has evidence they did anything other than the 1969 to 1970 conversions on finished cars, please let me know.
I was just looking at the dates on the Marti report. I'm thinking some time between April 7th when the order was received and May 6th when the car was built, someone at Ford who thought it would be a good idea to build a Boss 302 Shelby got word from their boss that they were killing the Shelby program and remaining cars would be restamped as 1970 models. There clearly was no need to explore the possibility of a Boss 302 Shelby anymore but the paperwork for the car was already in the pipeline so it just got built as a Boss 302. Maybe they tried to change the paperwork hence the 15-day late build time? Is it known at what date Ford decided to end Shelby production?
see the pic from 1979. Pic was taken near Plymouth Mi in the caption which is next to Canton Mi where the owner lived. Pic is now deleted from the car's website along with all the documents. That is probably when the car received the 351C.So Robert Brey was the first owner so that eliminates me looking for the name.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 10:52:28 AM
I was just looking at the dates on the Marti report. I'm thinking some time between April 7th when the order was received and May 6th when the car was built, someone at Ford who thought it would be a good idea to build a Boss 302 Shelby got word from their boss that they were killing the Shelby program and remaining cars would be restamped as 1970 models. There clearly was no need to explore the possibility of a Boss 302 Shelby anymore but the paperwork for the car was already in the pipeline so it just got built as a Boss 302. Maybe they tried to change the paperwork hence the 15-day late build time? Is it known at what date Ford decided to end Shelby production?
This is what I thought but also think they kept building Shelbys for the 70 year as why then were Shelbys built to the end of 69 production and some of those cars ended up as 70s?
Exactly how many Shelby's were built after this car? Maybe they were just filling out the orders that were already received.
A few more pics of the car. I guess Jeff didn't add the fog lamps. Notice the front fender antenna? I see there was an owner between Jeff to Gary Burke so I guess my memory fails me when I thought Gary bought the car off of Jeff. I thought George sold the car to someone in Indiana and Billy bought the car off of Bob. That is assuming the ownership timeline is true.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 10:58:34 AM
Exactly how many Shelby's were built after this car? Maybe they were just filling out the orders that were already received.
Well this car is 2244 and mine is 2351 and built on the same day so hard to say with the #s intertwined.
The flaired out rear quarters I remember but my memory tells me more at the top. It says Jeff installed new quarters in 1985 but the car wasn't bad looking in 1984-5 so don't know why he would do it. I only wish Jeff could come on and clear some of this up. To me in the primer pic you can see the roll bar through the back window.
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 11:12:50 AM
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 11:12:50 AM
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.
If only we had a copy of the build sheet. I know it's been posted online before, I thought on the SAACforum 1.0, but thinking that maybe it was the VMF or the Boss forum. Wonder if the Ream family has it in their archives?
Bill
My dearest and esteemed colleague Gary :
Just want to make sure we are both speaking about the same vehicle
Now on to what is intent?
Having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something
Layman's version of intent :
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck
This is the VIN # 9F02G482244 on the vehicle
G = Boss 302
48 = only used on Shelby vehicles
Boy if that's not intent and don't know what is
Let's just move on and remember opinions are just like A........pples
Everyone loves A.......apples
Hey who shot J. R. ?
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 11:12:50 AM
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.
Again this is what is shown in the ebay sales add today
What do you think of this paper work and tags ?
I have no dogs in this fight
Would love to have owned this "work of art" and again if it was mine, it would have been the rendition of how it looks currently today.
I would have called this masterpiece " The Shelby Lisa "
Come on guys if someone can figure out an old 67 GT 500 race car with a lot of nothing why not this car ? :o
The build sheet is mentioned in the auction. Post a copy of the sheet and the discussion is over. You want 350 large for your car...show the document! Why is not being shown?
QuoteThis car was endorsed, in writing, by Carroll Shelby, Ford Motor Company, and Edsel B. Ford II as the only 1969 Shelby built with a Boss 302 engine. All 67-69 Shelby cars manufactured by Ford Motor Company had the status number of 84X999. "G48" was B84X999, signifying that it was to be built as a Shelby, except with a Boss 302 drive train as stated on the build sheet with an 84 DSO home office reserve number.
Best wishes to All and to All a good night ![/color]
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 16, 2023, 12:56:30 PM
The build sheet is mentioned in the auction. Post a copy of the sheet and the discussion is over. You want 350 large for your car...show the document! Why is not being shown?
QuoteThis car was endorsed, in writing, by Carroll Shelby, Ford Motor Company, and Edsel B. Ford II as the only 1969 Shelby built with a Boss 302 engine. All 67-69 Shelby cars manufactured by Ford Motor Company had the status number of 84X999. "G48" was B84X999, signifying that it was to be built as a Shelby, except with a Boss 302 drive train as stated on the build sheet with an 84 DSO home office reserve number.
Perhaps the seller has seen this thread and will post the original build sheet for all to see. I'm still digging through old hard drives in search of the picture I saw eons ago.
Bill
This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it's a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 02:18:12 PM
This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.
G48 + 1
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 12:10:47 PM
My dearest and esteemed colleague Gary :
Just want to make sure we are both speaking about the same vehicle
Now on to what is intent?
Having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something
Layman's version of intent :
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck
This is the VIN # 9F02G482244 on the vehicle
G = Boss 302
48 = only used on Shelby vehicles
Boy if that's not intent and don't know what is
Let's just move on and remember opinions are just like A........pples
Everyone loves A.......apples
Hey who shot J. R. ?
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 11:12:50 AM
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.
one last time and I'll type SLOW for you: Cars that were built at that time that were
intended have Shelby conv pkg on the build sheet. This car has
NOT A SHELBY on it's build sheet. So are you still saying the intent was to build it as a Shelby when the build sheet says to the contrary?
Hi Gary
I really appreciate you helping me out by typing slowly its much clearer now.
Well "G" it's now extremely evident....its certainly not (code 48) a Shelby....
Thank you
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 12:10:47 PM
My dearest and esteemed colleague Gary :
Just want to make sure we are both speaking about the same vehicle
Now on to what is intent?
Having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something
Layman's version of intent :
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck
This is the VIN # 9F02G482244 on the vehicle
G = Boss 302
48 = only used on Shelby vehicles
Boy if that's not intent and don't know what is
Let's just move on and remember opinions are just like A........pples
Everyone loves A.......apples
Hey who shot J. R. ?
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: FL SAAC on December 16, 2023, 11:12:50 AM
Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.
Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle
My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one
Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.
one last time and I'll type SLOW for you: Cars that were built at that time that were intended have Shelby conv pkg on the build sheet. This car has NOT A SHELBY on it's build sheet. So are you still saying the intent was to build it as a Shelby when the build sheet says to the contrary?
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 02:18:12 PM
This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it's a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.
+1 This S show goes back 15 years. I personally heard him weave his tall tale to me at a Roush open house. The car is fabulous for what it is. It all started with a Must monthly article in 2008... Who wrote the article?
Damn, I "woke" the troll. Sorry troll, the line is now broken. No wonder so many dislike you. you must feed off of it.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 15, 2023, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 15, 2023, 03:11:25 PM
Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of restamping anything.
Nor am I but the ORIGINAL paperwork on the car is 58 not 48. Raises my curiosity to the point I would hire a good forensic guy to examine the VIN stampings before I threw down my money.
WHAT ?
I had not heard of this !
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 03:19:04 PM
Damn, I "woke" the troll.
If memory serves me correctly, "the troll" was the treason why one of the best threads covering this subject was deleted in a wholesale fashion. Perhaps with his typical over compensation, clearly due to an inferiority complex, the troll wants the same to occur to this thread, and any thread on the same subject. For what reason, we will never know. But at least we know, the more the troll posts, the more he loses.
Quote from: Bill on December 16, 2023, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 03:19:04 PM
Damn, I "woke" the troll.
If memory serves me correctly, "the troll" was the treason why one of the best threads covering this subject was deleted in a wholesale fashion. Perhaps with his typical over compensation, clearly due to an inferiority complex, the troll wants the same to occur to this thread, and any thread on the same subject. For what reason, we will never know. But at least we know, the more the troll posts, the more he loses.
well said.
Well said indeed.
with the statement made of
"Nor am I but the ORIGINAL paperwork on the car is 58 not 48. Raises my curiosity to the point I would hire a good forensic guy to examine the VIN stampings before I threw down my money."
This opens a legal can of worms with everyone that has been associated with this vehicle. Past and present.
When I owned it had 48 in the VIN of the windshield tag and metal stamped into the aprons.The patina of the tag and metal in those areas (pitted) never gave me the thought that they had been modified or replaced.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 16, 2023, 03:17:08 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 02:18:12 PM
This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it's a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.
+1 This S show goes back 15 years. I personally heard him weave his tall tale to me at a Roush open house. The car is fabulous for what it is. It all started with a Must monthly article in 2008... Who wrote the article?
Why all the vitriol? The car had/has nothing to do with who owns it.
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 09:02:06 PM
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.
The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302.
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 09:45:22 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 09:02:06 PM
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.
The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302.
You are getting ahead of yourself. You took a partial sentence out of context from 68stangcjfb. go read the RED I noted and it makes sense just the built may6 and released May8th. To me that is the most damning evidence on it. We are all in agreement on what the car is. Unlike most of those here I had seen and gone over this car in 1984. Followed this car through subsequent owners. As a 70 Shelby owner and one who had restored numerous 69-70 Mustangs up until that point and was in the process of restoring 1970 #3052 I pretty much had a handle on what was correct on dash vins and such. I had probably up to that point owned at least a dozen 69s.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 09:02:06 PM
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
you are spot on. What you will not see from the seller is the build sheet. There is a lively 15 year old conversation on this car on the B2 forum(9 pages). I got attacked on it from one guy. What is interesting is a friend of the owner told me he has the build sheet on the car in 2008. The build sheet says "NOT A SHELBY" and those that know Shelby build sheets they say Shelby GT350 or 500 Conv pkg. So why isn't the build sheet shown? We know the owner has it unless he "lost" it.
[Comment edited]
I commend the owner for adding the picture of the build sheet to the auction. It was not originally explained in the auction when the Shelby fiberglass was added. As we say, its his car and he can do what he wants with it.
I never doubted the tags or stampings on this car based on what I have seen.
I do think the question is answered and the discussion should turn to finding a new home for the car.
With regards to "shelbymann1970" I think his observations and comments were spot on. I have read the comments on the other forums to see what was said about the car and there were a lot of people attacking him and telling him to stop commenting (that's being polite) . I didn't see anything where he attacked the owners or their motivations. He was merely trying to set the historical record straight. He nailed it 15 years ago and continued it in this thread.
You may not like the delivery, but the points that were made were accurate. The best advice I can give anyone posting is stay on the topic and never attack the person posting. I have done it and it never turns out like you think it will.
"G" car = yes
"48" car = yes
Shelby = no (per Ford Motor)
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 17, 2023, 07:26:58 AM
I think you are 100% correct the car was built and released in two days, no AO Smith visit there.
I commend the owner for adding the picture of the build sheet to the auction. It was not originally explained in the auction when the Shelby fiberglass was added. As we say, its his car and he can do what he wants with it.
I never doubted the tags or stampings on this car based on what I have seen.
I do think the question is answered and the discussion should turn to finding a new home for the car.
I just went through the pics. I do not see a build sheet among them.
It is picture 27/41
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 17, 2023, 05:40:01 AM
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 09:45:22 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 09:02:06 PM
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.
The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302.
You are getting ahead of yourself. You took a partial sentence out of context from 68stangcjfb. go read the RED I noted and it makes sense just the built may6 and released May8th. To me that is the most damning evidence on it. We are all in agreement on what the car is. Unlike most of those here I had seen and gone over this car in 1984. Followed this car through subsequent owners. As a 70 Shelby owner and one who had restored numerous 69-70 Mustangs up until that point and was in the process of restoring 1970 #3052 I pretty much had a handle on what was correct on dash vins and such. I had probably up to that point owned at least a dozen 69s.
+1
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 17, 2023, 07:52:04 AM
It is picture 27/41
Thanks. I should have
REFRESHED my tab on the car. I see it now. Kudos for the seller in posting it.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 17, 2023, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 17, 2023, 05:40:01 AM
Quote from: 427hunter on December 16, 2023, 09:45:22 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 16, 2023, 09:02:06 PM
I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?
Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.
The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302.
You are getting ahead of yourself. You took a partial sentence out of context from 68stangcjfb. go read the RED I noted and it makes sense just the built may6 and released May8th. To me that is the most damning evidence on it. We are all in agreement on what the car is. Unlike most of those here I had seen and gone over this car in 1984. Followed this car through subsequent owners. As a 70 Shelby owner and one who had restored numerous 69-70 Mustangs up until that point and was in the process of restoring 1970 #3052 I pretty much had a handle on what was correct on dash vins and such. I had probably up to that point owned at least a dozen 69s.
+1
digging deeper on release dates they have no bearing on AO Smith dates it is just the plant date. 2244 was built 15 days late and my car was built 7 days early maybe even in line with this car but mine was built 5-6 and released 5-6 and there is no question it then headed to AO Smith and Marti reports do not show release dates when cars were converted to Shelbys it appears. There is no sold date on my car BUT when I bought my car the current French title said initial sold date as Sept 30,1970 so maybe I should tell Kevin that for his archives.
Okay. So that puts a dent in my theory. The A. O. Smith trip starts after the Ford release date. That being said, it's still only 38 days total between May 8th and June 16th between release and sale date. Add transport time to A.O. Smith and back to Dearborn and then to the dealership and it becomes a far stretch for the car to go from a Boss 302 to a Shelby and back to a Boss 302 then be sold in that amount of time. So the next logical questions would be how long did the conversion to a Shelby take at A. O. Smith. Then how long to convert it back to a Boss 302. I'm thinking Kevin Marti should be consulted about the statement on the Marti report to see if he has acual proof (is in paperwork in his files) this car became a Shelby at some point of he just assumed it was based on the 4 in the vin. Also, if this car was a prototype Boss 302 Shelby, why wasn't it treated like other prototypes like being crushed or ending up in the employee lot for sale etc. No, it was delivered to a regular dealer for sale.
Again, I have no agenda in this. To me it's just an interesting puzzle to solve.
My understanding is Kevin's information is from Ford. There is also a record of specifically what cars AO Smith converted. They had to show accounting for each vehicle to get paid according to their contract. If you want to get "big picture" this is a part of what sank the program. You had AO Smith/Shelby/Ford involved in a three way love triangle. There were a lot of things AO Smith was not paid for in what could be considered a timely manner. Eventually, they just said, "no thank you" to the 1970 program.
Unfortunately, this car was never converted to Shelby specifications. There is no record of AO Smith charging for their work. That has been the point all along. This includes Shelby Engineering cars.
I think the owner has stated it might have been done at Kar Kraft, but there is no evidence of that and that is not what they were contracted to do.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 17, 2023, 10:19:30 AM
Okay. So that puts a dent in my theory. The A. O. Smith trip starts after the Ford release date. That being said, it's still only 38 days total between May 8th and June 16th between release and sale date. Add transport time to A.O. Smith and back to Dearborn and then to the dealership and it becomes a far stretch for the car to go from a Boss 302 to a Shelby and back to a Boss 302 then be sold in that amount of time. So the next logical questions would be how long did the conversion to a Shelby take at A. O. Smith. Then how long to convert it back to a Boss 302. I'm thinking Kevin Marti should be consulted about the statement on the Marti report to see if he has acual proof (is in paperwork in his files) this car became a Shelby at some point of he just assumed it was based on the 4 in the vin. Also, if this car was a prototype Boss 302 Shelby, why wasn't it treated like other prototypes like being crushed or ending up in the employee lot for sale etc. No, it was delivered to a regular dealer for sale.
Again, I have no agenda in this. To me it's just an interesting puzzle to solve.
Simple, because the Shelby program was terminated.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on December 17, 2023, 10:19:30 AM
Okay. So that puts a dent in my theory. The A. O. Smith trip starts after the Ford release date. That being said, it's still only 38 days total between May 8th and June 16th between release and sale date. Add transport time to A.O. Smith and back to Dearborn and then to the dealership and it becomes a far stretch for the car to go from a Boss 302 to a Shelby and back to a Boss 302 then be sold in that amount of time. So the next logical questions would be how long did the conversion to a Shelby take at A. O. Smith. Then how long to convert it back to a Boss 302. I'm thinking Kevin Marti should be consulted about the statement on the Marti report to see if he has acual proof (is in paperwork in his files) this car became a Shelby at some point of he just assumed it was based on the 4 in the vin. Also, if this car was a prototype Boss 302 Shelby, why wasn't it treated like other prototypes like being crushed or ending up in the employee lot for sale etc. No, it was delivered to a regular dealer for sale.
Again, I have no agenda in this. To me it's just an interesting puzzle to solve.
I think some of the common belief about prototype or engineering cars connected with Shelby being crushed has been disproved in the last ten years or so with a number of cars thought crushed being re discovered. Other non Shelby cars like the quarter horse two cars come to mind. I may be wrong but I think at least some of those also were delivered to Ford dealers at least on paper and maybe not physically before being sold to the public. When I bought the car back in the day from my friend George the story was that the car was put together hastily so it could be sold on a employee lot. Right or wrong that was the story then. FYI the car was extremely rusty and after the unibody came back from Redi Strip in Evansville with all of the rust gone it looked like Swiss cheese. The condition it came back to me in and all of the sheet metal that needed to be replaced everywhere (Michigan salt most likely) was why I sold it. The Ford assemblyline factory punched hole in the firewall I observed for the Shelby foglight harness supports the story that it was intended to be finished as a Shelby but given other evidence was never converted. I didn't agree with Billy Jay's poetic licenses restoring it as a 70 because it would be unique looking enough if restored to 69 Shelby trim which is what I wanted to do. It was his car so his prerogative. Regardless it looks excellent now and from what I have seen excellent workmanship bringing it to its current condition. I wish him well on the sale of the car.
Well said, people don't have to agree with the decisions that were made. Its very helpful to know who made them and when they were made.
Straw man arguments and talking in circles that's what this has become.
It is a G48 - it left Dearborn as a boss 302 coded on the vin to be a Shelby, that is the story.
This is for the prime instigator "Shelbyman":
Who said it was built as a Selby?
Who said it went to A.O. Smith?
Are you saying the vin numbers and body stamps are fake?
What are you trying to accomplish?
I am somewhat interested in the car. Had a new 70 Mach1 in that color . It does look nice now. I'd just use it as a summer car. What do you guys think it's worth realistically? just as a Boss 302 prototype ?
I just talked to george H who bought it from gary b back in early 90s after i looked at it and he has a file on the car from when he bought it that should help.
I think that the end statement that is the one that will resonate loudest is that on December 17,2023 with four days left in the auction there are still zero bids. The starting point is $350,000.00.
So not a lot of people willing at this point to jump into the pool.
The car is a really interesting, cool looking, conversation piece. It has had a lot of high end atta-boys but is still not generating the fiscal interest in the deep end of the pool.
As a car I like it, at that price point, I don't.
John
It's an interesting unique car. Most don't find comfort in investing in this much uniqueness.
It has similarities to the '67 Shelby convertible in that the debate is in how was it "intended" to be bodied.
I think that it takes time to build the value. It gets built by building interest.
It may not bring 350 today but no one knows for sure about tomorrow. That really is what speculative "investment" is?
Just like some say about disappointing auction results, i.e., "the right buyer wasn't in the house". That probably applies now.
Years ago I had a real shot at one of the dual Paxton Cobras. I didn't want it. It was to "unique" (weird). Hindsight is always 20/20.
In any case, as an uninvolved observer, I have found this discussion interesting and entertaining. I appreciate all the efforts of all the posters. Fortunately I don't have to agree or disagree with anyone. :)
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 17, 2023, 02:51:16 PM
I think that the end statement that is the one that will resonate loudest is that on December 17,2023 with four days left in the auction there are still zero bids. The starting point is $350,000.00.
So not a lot of people willing at this point to jump into the pool.
The car is a really interesting, cool looking, conversation piece. It has had a lot of high end atta-boys but is still not generating the fiscal interest in the deep end of the pool.
As a car I like it, at that price point, I don't.
John
For a high profile car like this a ebay auction many times is more about a advertising exercise in letting people know the car is out there and can be bought along with the price range it can be bought for from the seller later. Some cars sell in the auction and others sell later in private sales to people who followed the auction . Some high end buyers do not want others to know what they paid. It will be interesting to see which way this one goes.
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 17, 2023, 02:51:16 PM
I think that the end statement that is the one that will resonate loudest is that on December 17,2023 with four days left in the auction there are still zero bids. The starting point is $350,000.00.
So not a lot of people willing at this point to jump into the pool.
The car is a really interesting, cool looking, conversation piece. It has had a lot of high end atta-boys but is still not generating the fiscal interest in the deep end of the pool.
As a car I like it, at that price point, I don't.
John
another thing people like to consider is how much of the original car is left? I saw it with original quarters done and appeared to have bodywork done as in bondo flairs at the top of the quarters. I grew up a few miles from Dearborn and have owned a lot of Mich Mustangs and in a few short years these cars were rusting out. I have owned my share of rusty Mi Mustangs to where we broke a rusty shock tower on a 69 in 1978 doing donuts and hitting the curb with the pass wheel breaking the DS shock tower(I wasn't driving nor was it my car). 1980 I owned a 44Kmile one owner 70 with a rusted floor to the point the DS seat rocked a little. So this car being in my neck of the woods being swiss cheese when dipped decades later wouldn't surprise me. The original engine was out there but not in the car nor owned by the second owner in 1984. So how did the original engine find its way back into the car(did it?). So you have a unique 1 of 1 car but how much of the original car is there? I'm sure some buyers would be considering that also but others not? Time will tell.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 17, 2023, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 17, 2023, 02:51:16 PM
I think that the end statement that is the one that will resonate loudest is that on December 17,2023 with four days left in the auction there are still zero bids. The starting point is $350,000.00.
So not a lot of people willing at this point to jump into the pool.
The car is a really interesting, cool looking, conversation piece. It has had a lot of high end atta-boys but is still not generating the fiscal interest in the deep end of the pool.
As a car I like it, at that price point, I don't.
John
another thing people like to consider is how much of the original car is left? I saw it with original quarters done and appeared to have bodywork done as in bondo flairs at the top of the quarters. I grew up a few miles from Dearborn and have owned a lot of Mich Mustangs and in a few short years these cars were rusting out. I have owned my share of rusty Mi Mustangs to where we broke a rusty shock tower on a 69 in 1978 doing donuts and hitting the curb with the pass wheel breaking the DS shock tower(I wasn't driving nor was it my car). 1980 I owned a 44Kmile one owner 70 with a rusted floor to the point the DS seat rocked a little. So this car being in my neck of the woods being swiss cheese when dipped decades later wouldn't surprise me. The original engine was out there but not in the car nor owned by the second owner in 1984. So how did the original engine find its way back into the car(did it?). So you have a unique 1 of 1 car but how much of the original car is there? I'm sure some buyers would be considering that also but others not? Time will tell.
I have been reading through this post without comment. I have quite a few of these same thoughts, not because I grew up surrounded by rust and cars that live on salted roads. However I have had relatives that had pick up trucks that were Swiss Cheese. I've been enjoying the banter back and forth on this particular car. It's been entertaining.
Is '482244' in the Shelby registry?
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 06:36:11 PM
Is '482244' in the Shelby registry?
Page 459 of current registry. It says the vin is a mystery.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 17, 2023, 06:58:29 PM
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 06:36:11 PM
Is '482244' in the Shelby registry?
Page 459 of current registry. It says the vin is a mystery.
Thanks. Thats all folks, its a Shelby. End of topic...
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 17, 2023, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 17, 2023, 02:51:16 PM
I think that the end statement that is the one that will resonate loudest is that on December 17,2023 with four days left in the auction there are still zero bids. The starting point is $350,000.00.
So not a lot of people willing at this point to jump into the pool.
The car is a really interesting, cool looking, conversation piece. It has had a lot of high end atta-boys but is still not generating the fiscal interest in the deep end of the pool.
As a car I like it, at that price point, I don't.
John
another thing people like to consider is how much of the original car is left? I saw it with original quarters done and appeared to have bodywork done as in bondo flairs at the top of the quarters. I grew up a few miles from Dearborn and have owned a lot of Mich Mustangs and in a few short years these cars were rusting out. I have owned my share of rusty Mi Mustangs to where we broke a rusty shock tower on a 69 in 1978 doing donuts and hitting the curb with the pass wheel breaking the DS shock tower(I wasn't driving nor was it my car). 1980 I owned a 44Kmile one owner 70 with a rusted floor to the point the DS seat rocked a little. So this car being in my neck of the woods being swiss cheese when dipped decades later wouldn't surprise me. The original engine was out there but not in the car nor owned by the second owner in 1984. So how did the original engine find its way back into the car(did it?). So you have a unique 1 of 1 car but how much of the original car is there? I'm sure some buyers would be considering that also but others not? Time will tell.
Straw man arguments and talking in circles, now your casting aspersion. If credibility matters to you give it a rest.
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 07:32:54 PM
Thanks. Thats all folks, its a Shelby. End of topic...
Yet, it appears, the build sheet posted publically by the seller himself, tells a different tale.
Can you really dispute the build sheet, seems the intent was to not actually build it as a Shelby, and Ford made it perfectly clear at that point.
Quote from: Bill on December 17, 2023, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 07:32:54 PM
Thanks. Thats all folks, its a Shelby. End of topic...
Yet, it appears, the build sheet posted publically by the seller himself, tells a different tale.
Can you really dispute the build sheet, seems the intent was to not actually build it as a Shelby, and Ford made it perfectly clear at that point.
Build sheets have been known to be incorrect. Yet, the VIN is THE absolute last say on this.
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: Bill on December 17, 2023, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 07:32:54 PM
Thanks. Thats all folks, its a Shelby. End of topic...
Yet, it appears, the build sheet posted publically by the seller himself, tells a different tale.
Can you really dispute the build sheet, seems the intent was to not actually build it as a Shelby, and Ford made it perfectly clear at that point.
Build sheets have been known to be incorrect. Yet, the VIN is THE absolute last say on this.
Do you have a clear understanding on how the build sheets work within the Ford manufacturing line and internal ordering and billing system? If you did, then you would see why your statement here, on this thread, is incorrect. Of course, if your intent is just to play devils advocate to get a rise out of some, I believe that presumed assumption has failed as well. At least in my case.
Quote from: Bill on December 17, 2023, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: Bill on December 17, 2023, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: crossboss on December 17, 2023, 07:32:54 PM
Thanks. Thats all folks, its a Shelby. End of topic...
Yet, it appears, the build sheet posted publically by the seller himself, tells a different tale.
Can you really dispute the build sheet, seems the intent was to not actually build it as a Shelby, and Ford made it perfectly clear at that point.
Build sheets have been known to be incorrect. Yet, the VIN is THE absolute last say on this.
Do you have a clear understanding on how the build sheets work within the Ford manufacturing line and internal ordering and billing system? If you did, then you would see why your statement here, on this thread, is incorrect. Of course, if your intent is just to play devils advocate to get a rise out of some, I believe that presumed assumption has failed as well. At least in my case.
No, your pointing fingers at others of what you are guilty of. On a good note, I hope the owner of the car in question gets BIG money for it. Bye.
Seagull SAAC Forum - people just fly in S#it all over someone else's car and then fly away, no facts but lots of opinions.
Quote from: 427hunter on December 18, 2023, 12:15:59 AM
Seagull SAAC Forum - people just fly in S#it all over someone else's car and then fly away, no facts but lots of opinions.
Yep. Just like you and I talked about at the show on Saturday.
Here are some facts for you that like facts:
The car is being represented as a "Shelby GT350"
The car was not built as a Shelby until more than 25 years after Ford assembled it as a Boss 302
The car does have a "G48" serial number
The owner posted factory paperwork that very specifically says "Not a Shelby"
The owner posted vintage pictures of the car in the Boss 302 trim, without the correct quarters or tail lights for a Shelby
1969 Shelbys were not built at Kar Kraft as the owner previously stated.
So, whats the argument about?
Oh, maybe its that there is no adult supervision on the forum? I think its just been proven again.
Agreed Bill, I see a couple of guys that want to keep the contention going...as they often say, when you resort to name calling, you have lost the argument.
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 18, 2023, 06:16:59 AM
Here are some facts for you that like facts:
The car is being represented as a "Shelby GT350"
The car was not built as a Shelby until more than 25 years after Ford assembled it as a Boss 302
The car does have a "G48" serial number
The owner posted factory paperwork that very specifically says "Not a Shelby"
The owner posted vintage pictures of the car in the Boss 302 trim, without the correct quarters or tail lights for a Shelby
1969 Shelbys were not built at Kar Kraft as the owner previously stated.
So, whats the argument about?
Oh, maybe its that there is no adult supervision on the forum? I think its just been proven again.
Agreed Bill, I see a couple of guys that want to keep the contention going...as they often say, when you resort to name calling, you have lost the argument.
Crossboss says his Shelby was built at Kar Kraft and has the invoices to prove it. #3129. Reply #8 https://www.boss302.com/smf/index.php?topic=35552.0
Since certain people want facts here are some more facts: 1969 Shelbys were coded as Mach1s for fastbacks so 63C cars with "3A" or "3AA" for black interiors and a "5" designation on the paint code(should be 65 but is just 6 on the Marti). No argument here, right? This car's build sheet says the car was built as a 63B car (like Boss 9s and deluxe interior B2s and other non Mach1 non Shelby Fastbacks). The build sheet also "DA" for the interior code which is hi back comfortweave seats which-like B9s and non Mach1 FBs- got NO RED STRIPE on the seat or red molded floor mats. To me another fact, clue whatever that this car was not intended to be a Shelby. Show me one AO Smith Shelby built in 1969 with a 63B code and DA code for interior seats. The facts just keep piling in.
LOOK, cool car. It looks better in it's current state.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on December 18, 2023, 07:21:16 AM
Since certain people want facts here are some more facts: 1969 Shelbys were coded as Mach1s for fastbacks so 63C cars with "3A" or "3AA" for black interiors and a "5" designation on the paint code(should be 65 but is just 6 on the Marti). No argument here, right? This car's build sheet says the car was built as a 63B car (like Boss 9s and deluxe interior B2s and other non Mach1 non Shelby Fastbacks). The build sheet also "DA" for the interior code which is hi back comfortweave seats which-like B9s and non Mach1 FBs- got NO RED STRIPE on the seat or red molded floor mats. To me another fact, clue whatever that this car was not intended to be a Shelby. Show me one AO Smith Shelby built in 1969 with a 63B code and DA code for interior seats. The facts just keep piling in.
LOOK, cool car. It looks better in it's current state.
Guys,
With all due respect, you are still beating a dead horse. Interior combos aside, it STILL has a VIN of 'G48'. Lets put this to rest, and move on.
Quote from: Coralsnake on December 18, 2023, 06:16:59 AM
Here are some facts for you that like facts:
The car is being represented as a "Shelby GT350"
The car was not built as a Shelby until more than 25 years after Ford assembled it as a Boss 302
The car does have a "G48" serial number
The owner posted factory paperwork that very specifically says "Not a Shelby"
The owner posted vintage pictures of the car in the Boss 302 trim, without the correct quarters or tail lights for a Shelby
1969 Shelbys were not built at Kar Kraft as the owner previously stated.
So, whats the argument about?
Oh, maybe its that there is no adult supervision on the forum? I think its just been proven again.
Agreed Bill, I see a couple of guys that want to keep the contention going...as they often say, when you resort to name calling, you have lost the argument.
Other then in your own mind who is saying these things? The history of the car is known you are the only person unable to accept things. I am not sure why you want to try and sow discontent here and on BAT but you seem to thrive on it.