which years and model Shelby had Monte Carlo bars?
65 and 66 as far as I know. Let the experts chime in.
Quote from: kasearch@ix.netcom.com on February 09, 2024, 11:12:33 AM
which years and model Shelby had Monte Carlo bars?
Quote from: deathsled on February 09, 2024, 11:14:29 AM
65 and 66 as far as I know. Let the experts chime in.
That is correct for regular production cars.
Hi all interested in these- any idea who made them? They were first used on the Falcons prepped to run in the Monte Carlo Rally if
we understand the history behind the name.......so were they made by an outside company like Dearborn Steel Tube ? I have yet to
ever see them listed by Ford like the "Export Package" was. Doubtfull Shelby made them in house. So does anyone know the history
behind them?
Curious R.R.
The ghost drawing of the '67 Shelby on the earliest edition of the '67 factory spec sheet shows a Monte Carlo bar, suggesting that it was intended to be offered. This feature was removed from the drawings on subsequent editions.
Having owned '67's as low as serial #004, I have never encountered one with a factory installed bar.
According to the 1965 Shelby American parts book, they were made by Traction Master. They list a kit as well as the basic braces (base number is 29432). See the attached photo.
Dave
Quote from: Bill Collins on February 09, 2024, 02:19:42 PM
The ghost drawing of the '67 Shelby on the earliest edition of the '67 factory spec sheet shows a Monte Carlo bar, suggesting that it was intended to be offered. This feature was removed from the drawings on subsequent editions.
Having owned '67's as low as serial #004, I have never encountered one with a factory installed bar.
Your post illustrates why I thought important to say in reply #2 that it was correct that they were only used on 65/66 "regular production cars" ;) That of course excludes competition,protype ,engineering cars etc. of other years.
Quote from: CSX4781 on February 09, 2024, 02:23:23 PM
According to the 1965 Shelby American parts book, they were made by Traction Master. They list a kit as well as the basic braces (base number is 29432). See the attached photo.
Brings up a whole new question. What is the difference between the S1MS and S1MR brace? Thicker tubing on the R? Shelby smoke and mirrors - selling street part as race part - kinda like adding military grade to a common flashlight today.
The brace was an easy and visible part to install. But by mid 66 the handwriting was on the wall that production had to speed up. Ford had sent production experts trying to get things moving. They eliminated relocating the control arms and over-ride traction bars. While the early 67 drawing showed the bar Ford was steering the Shelby into the luxury market and getting away from its stripped down race car roots. Charging a couple grand to improve performance and handling that you couldn't see had a limited market. Charging a couple grand on flash that the neighbors could see is where they were going. Even later they found that adding GT350, SVO, SVT and Cobra tags on the Mustang didn't boost sales. Marketing struck upon adding "Shelby GT500" to the 2005 Mustang (fully developed by SVT) and found that mystique boosted sales greatly.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on February 09, 2024, 02:57:25 PM
Quote from: CSX4781 on February 09, 2024, 02:23:23 PM
According to the 1965 Shelby American parts book, they were made by Traction Master. They list a kit as well as the basic braces (base number is 29432). See the attached photo.
Brings up a whole new question. What is the difference between the S1MS and S1MR brace? Thicker tubing on the R? Shelby smoke and mirrors - selling street part as race part - kinda like adding military grade to a common flashlight today.
The brace was an easy and visible part to install. But by mid 66 the handwriting was on the wall that production had to speed up. Ford had sent production experts trying to get things moving. They eliminated relocating the control arms and over-ride traction bars. While the early 67 drawing showed the bar Ford was steering the Shelby into the luxury market and getting away from its stripped down race car roots. Charging a couple grand to improve performance and handling that you couldn't see had a limited market. Charging a couple grand on flash that the neighbors could see is where they were going. Even later they found that adding GT350, SVO, SVT and Cobra tags on the Mustang didn't boost sales. Marketing struck upon adding "Shelby GT500" to the 2005 Mustang (fully developed by SVT) and found that mystique boosted sales greatly.
I am not aware of a difference but I think it is logical to rule out something like heavier tubing which would likely cost more given the two numbers had the same price.
Agree with all mentioned.
That said, the Monte Carlo bar is perhaps the most useful upgrade for a "driver" caliber car.
The straight bar fits perfect with original dual point distributor and dual quad intake.
Quote from: vtgt500 on February 09, 2024, 05:19:00 PM
Agree with all mentioned.
That said, the Monte Carlo bar is perhaps the most useful upgrade for a "driver" caliber car.
The straight bar fits perfect with original dual point distributor and dual quad intake.
+1 . I think the Monte Carlo bar is best utilized with the stronger one piece cowl/export brace however. The two together make a significant difference in the stiffness of the front end. While we are on the subject a pet peeve of mine is the after market Monte Carlo bar with the big hoop in it used to clear distributor and air cleaner. I see them used on cars all of the time . The hoop will allow flex where the straight bar will not . That hoop all but negates the purpose at that point . By negating the stiffness purpose with the hoop it becomes more cosmetic at that point. As cosmetic things go under the hood it looks embarrassing and silly to me . Just my opinion others may have a different one.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 09, 2024, 05:57:27 PM
The hoop will allow flex where the straight bar will not . That hoop all but negates the purpose at that point . By negating the stiffness purpose with the hoop it becomes more cosmetic at that point. As cosmetic things go under the hood it looks embarrassing and silly to me .
+1 ;)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on February 09, 2024, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 09, 2024, 05:57:27 PM
The hoop will allow flex where the straight bar will not . That hoop all but negates the purpose at that point . By negating the stiffness purpose with the hoop it becomes more cosmetic at that point. As cosmetic things go under the hood it looks embarrassing and silly to me .
+1 ;)
Scott.
+1,000. ;)
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 09, 2024, 05:57:27 PM
Quote from: vtgt500 on February 09, 2024, 05:19:00 PM
Agree with all mentioned.
That said, the Monte Carlo bar is perhaps the most useful upgrade for a "driver" caliber car.
The straight bar fits perfect with original dual point distributor and dual quad intake.
+1 . I think the Monte Carlo bar is best utilized with the stronger one piece cowl/export brace however. The two together make a significant difference in the stiffness of the front end. While we are on the subject a pet peeve of mine is the after market Monte Carlo bar with the big hoop in it used to clear distributor and air cleaner. I see them used on cars all of the time . The hoop will allow flex where the straight bar will not . That hoop all but negates the purpose at that point . By negating the stiffness purpose with the hoop it becomes more cosmetic at that point. As cosmetic things go under the hood it looks embarrassing and silly to me . Just my opinion others may have a different one.
Do you know by engineering how much flex? At what point the bar-G-force wise- the bar will start to flex? Yeah, I was guilty of adding one to my 68 that was not built to be an original car(replaced drive train) before I ever heard of the flex. A steel tubular bar even with a curve in it will offer some rigidity over nothing at all. Yeah, If I could go back I wouldn't install the bar now. But that was a different time and I don't consider the bars silly even now. To each their own. Oh yeah, I'd take that silly "Caution Fan" sticker off the car if I still owned it. ;D It came on the fan shroud(at least I didn't buy it)
Quote from: vtgt500 on February 09, 2024, 05:19:00 PM
Agree with all mentioned.
That said, the Monte Carlo bar is perhaps the most useful upgrade for a "driver" caliber car.
The straight bar fits perfect with original dual point distributor and dual quad intake.
My car has a ford dual quad intake with vintage holleys along with stock ignition and had the monte carlo bar with a hoop when I bought it as third owner 38 years ago. The original monte carlo bar was in the trunk. I tried to re-install the straight bar and it would not fit.
Mine fits with no issues with the dual point distributor and dual fours.
The Cobra oval air cleaner fits over the bar.
I don't see the issue that requires a looped bar.
Can't recall what the specific clearance issue was with mine, but I assume it was the front carb. It was a long time ago that I tried to install it. I recall it was close but was not going to fit with the original holes, and I did not want to get into drilling new ones. My Holleys are the List 3360 / 3361's. Perhaps yours are different carbs and have different dimensions?
Quote from: jk66gt350 on February 10, 2024, 05:13:24 PM
Can't recall what the specific clearance issue was with mine, but I assume it was the front carb. It was a long time ago that I tried to install it. I recall it was close but was not going to fit with the original holes, and I did not want to get into drilling new ones. My Holleys are the List 3360 / 3361's. Perhaps yours are different carbs and have different dimensions?
If your car is a 1966, the straight bar may not fit because of the engine orientation in the compartment. On a 1966. the bar slips behind the distributor and on a 1967/1968, in passes over the distributor top. What brand of carbs are you using?
I also ran 2x4s for years on my 70 Mustang. With no clearance issues.Tony does run his carbs backwards, so that may be a slight difference there.
Roy
These are all Holley "1850" regardless of what you id them as.
If you mount them backwards the front carb is just 1/2" farther away from the distributor cap.
I've run them both ways, front or reverse and the difference is just a linkage simplification thing. Front is simpler with no possibility of the linkage jambing wide open.
I never had a '66 so I don't know what the clearance issue is.
I have seen clearance issues with the Cobra oval air cleaner on later cars.
These are non-stock set ups so there is fabrication involved in making adjustments but in my view is not complicated.
Rather then drill new hole in a '66, the mounting bracket on the bar can be changed to relocate the bar for clearance and use the existing holes. That's the way I would go in that situation if possible.
What did Shelby do on the 66 G[ II cars?
Somewhere out there I recall a photo of a 66 with dual quads where the monte carlo bar ran through the ail cleaner. Maybe Jeff Burgy's car?
Quote from: s2ms on February 10, 2024, 08:53:06 PM
Somewhere out there I recall a photo of a 66 with dual quads where the monte carlo bar ran through the ail cleaner. Maybe Jeff Burgy's car?
Yes Burgy's but 3x2.