Whats your idea on where gt350 intakes were installed?
Thanks for the update Pete. We always appreciate it.
QSS
Pete i think iron 351 intakes were changed out at aosmith as thats why they used the blue painted bolts and other attaching parts over. If the shelby intake was installed at ford they would have used all unpainted bolts and attaching parts and it would have made a better looking engine. Also if intake was installed at ford they would have to keep them engines separated and stored and inventory would be a problem building then 4 ways auto vs 4 speed and auto a/c vs 4-speed a/c not knowing what was ordered and sold as shelbys. Also if ford would have built the engines as special gt350 engines they would have there own unique engine code tags and decals.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 01, 2025, 09:25:00 PMPete i think iron 351 intakes were changed out at aosmith as thats why they used the blue painted bolts and other attaching parts over. If the shelby intake was installed at ford they would have used all unpainted bolts and attaching parts and it would have made a better looking engine. Also if intake was installed at ford they would have to keep them engines separated and stored and inventory would be a problem building then 4 ways auto vs 4 speed and auto a/c vs 4-speed a/c not knowing what was ordered and sold as shelbys.
The valve covers were installed at Ford on SB and BB as vintage pictures confirm so Ford had to know which were Shelby engines from that aspect alone. I believe Ford installed the 69 GT350 intake as it would be most cost efficient and they had it figured out in 67 production given the bare aluminum engine plant installed GT500 intake that wasn't as easy as a SB intake unpainted aluminum intake to install . Vintage pictures of GT500 automatic engine completely dressed prior to installing on the Ford line. I questioned Chuck Cantwell several times over the years and he said that SA didn't install any intakes in 67. With that said if it could be done and was done in 67 production I don't see why it wouldn't be done in 69 with the GT350 especially since the engine was certified with the aluminum intake from the get go unlike 68.
Not a 69 but this vintage 67 production photo (Speed and Supercar August 1967) example illustrates that Ford engine plant had the ability to separate Shelby engines from regular Mustang engines regardless of if small block or big block. The full dress GT500 engine also illustrates that if Ford can accomplish the complicated GT500 intake install at the Ford engine plant on the 428 PI engine that logically a small block intake install would be simple by comparison given how many less steps the small block intake install has. Admittedly not a absolute validation for the 69 GT350 Ford engine plant intake install however it debunks that Ford would not know which engines were going on Shelby's along with the variations like auto,4 speed, Smog, AC or no AC.
Do agree that the intake attaching bolts, therm housing (with bolts, bypass hose and clamps) like in earlier small blocks were transferred from the cast iron intakes to the aluminum ones during the conversion. This included the heater hose elbow also.
As far as keeping track of a couple of additional engine types in loading or shipping it really should not create an issue given the 100 or so different engines being built at different plants and models of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury products of the time. Just a couple of more lines on a form. We do IMO already have examples of different ID practices of identifying Shelby engines all the way back into 65 production.
Would make a mention so that someone does not assume something incorrect. In the picture above of the 67 GT500 engine and trans they were not shipped that was from the engine or transmission plant. Appears someone was doing something possibly at Shelby with a lose motor and trans to test or show something. Don't think it was taken at San Jose but could be incorrect on that. Not sure why someone would be there taking pictures specifically of those two items plus it appears to be a concrete floor.
Yeah that 67 gt500 engine photo is interesting look at tall carb studs and bare block wrapped in plastic bags in the back ground. If ford would have wanted to build 69 gt350 engines separately from the start they would have there own special engine code since they would install aluminum intake and valve covers and ram air lid before shipping (but ram air lid may have been installed on the dearborn assembly line or aosmith not sure). The fact that all intake parts are painted blue and used over when aluminum intake was installed tells u the engine had a finished painted blue cast iron intake setup and the fact that the blue painted gauge feed wire j-straps were on the steel valve cover bolts painted blue were used over when the aluminum shelby valve covers were installed. It would have been easier to switch the intake and valves over before the engine drop so could that have been done at the dearborn assembly line? But it also wouldnt have been to hard to switch out at aosmith plant before the fiberglass nose was installed easy access to work on engine also that may be the reason why we dont see engine lift hooks on the 351w shelbys as they may have been removed before aluminum valve covers were installed since the engine was already in place they werent needed anymore not sure on that.
I will do a search to see if we can find some evidence to support either theory. I honestly dont know...
Quote from: Special Ed on January 01, 2025, 09:25:00 PMAlso if ford would have built the engines as special gt350 engines they would have there own unique engine code tags and decals.
I thought the K211-S engine tag on my gt350 is a unique code for gt350 with an automatic transmission.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 01, 2025, 05:29:15 PMGreat work pete and i see the 69 shelbys are starting to get a little love on the coralsnake site. So u thinking the difference between 420 s vs 420 t engine code is the air cleaner change using the orange hose bleeder valve on choke as the air cleaner i would think was installed on the assembly line but the automatic choke orange hose with T metal tube would have been installed at the engine plant and that would make a change in the engine code from s to t. Also u said in your photo the c9ze-e fan didnt use a clutch but i think u meant the scj c90e-h fan didnt use a clutch. The 69 water pump pulley and belts are always a problem figuring out without a build sheet since 3 pulleys were used on the 69 cj/scj. Even thou the march -july 69 scj build sheets call out the c9ze-e clutch fan changeover i have never documented it and only seen c90e-h fans on 69 v and w code scjs. I tried to document the fan change over on the 428 cj site years ago but had problems figueing it out since most scj cars were raced and molested back in the 70s so does anybody have a late 69 gt500 scj with the c9ze-e clutch fan that came on the car from factory? thanks
Ed, while I cannot say my fan and clutch are original to my car my car(69 NJ Mach1) has the "E" with a clutch and also no gear reducer and a V code May 91969 build(it Fits the 428 CJ site parts/time line). I know the fan/Clutch was most likely with the car when the prior owner got it in 1980. My car has always had a SCJ engine in it so no reason to think my car was a cobbled together SCJ car.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 01, 2025, 05:29:15 PMGreat work pete and i see the 69 shelbys are starting to get a little love on the coralsnake site. So u thinking the difference between 420 s vs 420 t engine code is the air cleaner change using the orange hose bleeder valve on choke as the air cleaner i would think was installed on the assembly line but the automatic choke orange hose with T metal tube would have been installed at the engine plant and that would make a change in the engine code from s to t. Also u said in your photo the c9ze-e fan didnt use a clutch but i think u meant the scj c90e-h fan didnt use a clutch. The 69 water pump pulley and belts are always a problem figuring out without a build sheet since 3 pulleys were used on the 69 cj/scj. Even thou the march -july 69 scj build sheets call out the c9ze-e clutch fan changeover i have never documented it and only seen c90e-h fans on 69 v and w code scjs. I tried to document the fan change over on the 428 cj site years ago but had problems figueing it out since most scj cars were raced and molested back in the 70s so does anybody have a late 69 gt500 scj with the c9ze-e clutch fan that came on the car from factory? thanks
ED, that orange 70 GT500 with 500 miles built June 2 appears by one pic I have to have a non clutch fan and a V code.
Hi and Happy New Year!
Just thinking about intake manifolds and the process of production would lead us to think any engine work that involved its operation (run properly) would be done by Ford.
They would have to certify it passed emission testing. Shelby was the end label but not responsible for certification. Ford knew exactly what they were supplying by the DSO
Process so simple to separate the special components for a fleet run which is what Ford considered Shelby. This is consistent for the entire Shelby production run starting in 1964. Remember emissions standards changed every year and Ford was responsible for the testing. Ever wonder why a BOSS 429 ended up with a smaller carb than a BOSS 302 ??
Apparently it was cold weather driveability and emissions....What a difference a few changes make in power output of a BOSS 429-Talk about waking up the sleeping giant!!
Don't want to get off track here, Will wait for Pete to dig up something.
R.R.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 02, 2025, 08:56:37 AMYeah that 67 gt500 engine photo is interesting look at tall carb studs and bare block wrapped in plastic bags in the back ground. If ford would have wanted to build 69 gt350 engines separately from the start they would have there own special engine code since they would install aluminum intake and valve covers and ram air lid before shipping (but ram air lid may have been installed on the dearborn assembly line or aosmith not sure)..............
In the earlier years from original pictures it appears that engines that had been converted to Shelby engines at the engine plant were identified bot by the little paper sticker and code but by other markings.
Don't find it surprising that the painted complete engines were built, painted then ran through the various run tests at the engine plant prior to swapping out the valve covers, intakes and such like the prior years. IMHO that would be the place to do the swap since these were the workers that were building the engines in the first place, had the needed gaskets and tools there. Parts that were taken off would have just been returned to the line and reinstalled on another engine reducing the need (if AO Smith had done the change over) to deal with those parts like Shelby had in the very first year or so when they handled the change. Plus IMO it helps with Ford warrantying the engines. If AOSmith had done the swap then Ford would be warrantying their work. Not sure if Ford legal beagles would have been comfortable with that.
In the spirit of discussion, just some thoughts looking at the history of the changes over more than a single year :)
We just had a discussion re intake bolts on a 67 GT500 and the 67 GT 500 did not use typical Ford FE intake bolts-so they were not transferred. In addition the Ford bolts are place bolts (ie: locking) and the Grade 5 substitute is not. A little confusing.
(https://www.saac.com/forum/index.php?topic=29106.0)
I think that some of the confusion comes from intermixing of different years and engine plants and in turn practices such as building the engines originally with the Cobra intakes or cast iron ones then swapping them.
Happens quite often on the site :)
Very much a which year discussion.
65-67 - CA built
68-69 - MI built
What were the Union rules once assembly moved to Ford. The engines were assembled in the engine plant. What were the union rules on who got to touch them and make changes at the assembly plant? It may have been easier to let the contractor (AO Smith) handle all the changes.
Quote from: warwick on January 02, 2025, 05:38:10 PMWe just had a discussion re intake bolts on a 67 GT500 and the 67 GT 500 did not use typical Ford FE intake bolts-so they were not transferred. In addition the Ford bolts are place bolts (ie: locking) and the Grade 5 substitute is not. A little confusing.
(https://www.saac.com/forum/index.php?topic=29106.0)
Unlike the small block GT350 engine the 67 GT500 engine was built with the duel four aluminum intake from the beginning. There were too many steps and parts to handle for a FE intake change which made it impractical to do except build it with with the desired intake from inception.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on January 02, 2025, 06:15:59 PMVery much a which year discussion.
65-67 - CA built
68-69 - MI built
What were the Union rules once assembly moved to Ford. The engines were assembled in the engine plant. What were the union rules on who got to touch them and make changes at the assembly plant? It may have been easier to let the contractor (AO Smith) handle all the changes.
It is easy to get facts confused in a discussion like this but you have your facts mixed up. If discussing engine then the GT350 engine was OH built 65-68 and Windsor CAN built in 69. If discussing the finished assemblyline plant then 65-67 CA as stated but 68 was NJ not MI . 69 was MI as stated.
Hi Again,
Looks like we now have 2 different engines being discussed. Maybe some have forgotten the DUAL carb full size Fords or the 3 2 BARREL engines built by Ford in 1963..
One other point is they all ran off the assembly line. Ford was and is strict about the
Quality of any parts supplied by an outside company, and as Jeff points out they would not get in a warranty situation with an engine build. A.O. Smith was still after Shelby over unpaid work from 1968 so 1 more reason to doubt they did any engine work for 69
Just my 2 cents
R.R.
There are 6 351-w 4v engine tag codes and no 428- 8v engine tag codes but several 427 - 8v engine tag codes.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 02, 2025, 09:17:12 PMThere are 6 351-w 4v engine tag codes and no 428- 8v engine tag codes but several 427 - 8v engine tag codes.
The 428 -8V engine was identified by code 400,401,402,403,410,411,412,413.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on January 02, 2025, 07:14:58 PM..... the finished assemblyline plant then 65-67 CA as stated but 68 was NJ not MI . 69 was MI as stated.
They were sub-assembled in NJ and finished at AO Smith in MI.
Quote from: Road Reptile on January 02, 2025, 08:34:58 PMA.O. Smith was still after Shelby over unpaid work from 1968 so 1 more reason to doubt they did any engine work for 69
AO was not after Shelby. They were after Ford. Ford wholly owned Shelby Automotive. They took over all production and trademarks around August 1967. Shelby was in the ads but he had no input. His Shelby Racing Co had a contract to run in TransAm through the end of the 69 series at which time his presence at Ford ended. By 1969 The GT350 and GT500 both got off the shelf Ford engines.
AO Smith had been building Corvettes for years and was fully capable of doing any modifications to the cars that Ford requested. I've heard at one point they threatened to crush the remaining 69s left on their lot if Ford didn't remove them.
The Ford MPC list i looked at had 428 4v code 400 401 404 405 410 411 and the rest of 428 codes were cj scj but not sure when that list was printed .
Quote from: Special Ed on January 02, 2025, 11:23:17 PMThe Ford MPC list i looked at had 428 4v code 400 401 404 405 410 411 and the rest of 428 codes were cj scj but not sure when that list was printed .
And it is missing 402,403,412,413 too. The MPC is typically mostly right but it has been known to have discrepancies and missing information also. One example are the missing codes IMO. That is if thermactor and or A/C are not important enough. I have never heard of what 404 and 405 are as it relates to a 67 Shelby engine.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on January 02, 2025, 06:15:59 PMVery much a which year discussion.
65-67 - CA built
68-69 - MI built
What were the Union rules once assembly moved to Ford. The engines were assembled in the engine plant. What were the union rules on who got to touch them and make changes at the assembly plant? It may have been easier to let the contractor (AO Smith) handle all the changes.
AS a UAW worker in the automotive field in Mi since 1978 there would be no union "rules" affecting how this would have been done either way. There would be no "lines of demarcation" to these jobs.
A Shelby buddy and I speaking about this very subject this morning. Answer: "Whats the difference, who cares" was his reply...gotta agree. Fact is, IT was done.
the logistics of getting cars from factory to shelby or ao smith . they had to run . and its not un realistic to think ford could assemble the engines with correct intakes and get them to the assembly line . thats what build sheets were for. (and still are) . and the stories of carbs being stolen off trains and storage lots would lean that way. all those cars in lax photos with no hoods have intakes and carbs and airfilters before they were modified.
Quote from: gt350shelb on January 04, 2025, 10:22:01 PMall those cars in lax photos with no hoods have intakes and carbs and airfilters before they were modified.
Didn't SA at some point send the aluminum accessories and carbs to Ford for installation in the 65-67 period?
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on January 04, 2025, 10:33:20 PMDidn't SA at some point send the aluminum accessories and carbs to Ford for installation in the 65-67 period?
Don't know that SA sent them but they got to the engine plant for installation there during that period. We do have copies of documentation of that as shown in a long older thread on the subject here on the site