What's the correct oil filter adapter for 67 Shelby gt 500 completed by 4-28-67? I found an adapter and curious if it's correct for original adapter matching for the numbers on my car
Hi,
The picture shows a C8 Casting number so this will not be correct for a 1967 build.
Maybe you could trade it for a correct part. Hope this helps.
R.R.
Quote from: clint67 on November 23, 2025, 11:10:36 AMWhat's the correct oil filter adapter for 67 Shelby gt 500 completed by 4-28-67? I found an adapter and curious if it's correct for original adapter matching for the numbers on my car
C0AE-6884-A
Agreed that it isn't going to be "correct", but if one were intending to "run the car hard", at all, I'd recommend going with the "updated" engineering of the "C8" product, which is more efficient at passing the oil volume, vs. the "CO" item. :)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on November 23, 2025, 07:16:38 PMAgreed that it isn't going to be "correct", but if one were intending to "run the car hard", at all, I'd recommend going with the "updated" engineering of the "C8" product, which is more efficient at passing the oil volume, vs. the "CO" item. :)
Scott.
With that in mind I typically suggest to port out the C0AE casting to look similar to the C8AE version inside passages. It doesn't take too long to do.That way you can have the historic look but with better oil flow.
I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a June 67 build date.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 23, 2025, 08:42:07 PMWith that in mind I typically suggest to port out the C0AE casting to look similar to the C8AE version inside passages. It doesn't take too long to do.
Yes, one 'can' improve upon the "COAE" port flow, some, . . . . but it doesn't possess the material to make it equal to the later version. :)
And do keep in mind, that apparently F.M.C. had determined that the design needed changing. ;)
Scott.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 12:45:46 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 01:48:46 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 12:45:46 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?
Maybe some photos would be helpful?
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 04:10:56 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 01:48:46 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 12:45:46 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?
Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 05:20:30 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 04:10:56 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 01:48:46 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 12:45:46 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?
Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one.
I wasn't asking you to answer anything.
I was stating that this one exists and likely isn't the only one.
You viewsa are narrow and inflexible and I would not expect that to change regardless of how you attempt to reverse the tables or the subject.
What you see as typical is only your perspective.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 07:59:14 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 05:20:30 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 04:10:56 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 01:48:46 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 12:45:46 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on November 24, 2025, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: shelbydoug on November 24, 2025, 06:50:25 AMI have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.
Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car. ;)
Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.
The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.
And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?
Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one.
I wasn't asking you to answer anything.
I was stating that this one exists and likely isn't the only one.
You viewsa are narrow and inflexible and I would not expect that to change regardless of how you attempt to reverse the tables or the subject.
What you see as typical is only your perspective.
I love you too Doug. ;D
I'll throw a little something into this mix also. I have a 70 Mustang, but when we pulled the radio out, it was a D1 part number, and my mother and I have had it since new, so I know that it was never changed out. It is not hard at all for me to imagine that a part made for next year's cars were put on the year before cars.Because they ran out and they already had parts for the next year that would work. If a car was made near the end of production.I could see this happening,But I have not paid attention to what month the car is that we were talking about.
Roy
Quote from: TA Coupe on November 24, 2025, 11:16:08 PMI'll throw a little something into this mix also. I have a 70 Mustang, but when we pulled the radio out, it was a D1 part number, and my mother and I have had it since new, so I know that it was never changed out. It is not hard at all for me to imagine that a part made for next year's cars were put on the year before cars.Because they ran out and they already had parts for the next year that would work. If a car was made near the end of production.I could see this happening,But I have not paid attention to what month the car is that we were talking about.
Roy
Roy ,I never said it didn't happen or couldn't happen if you review my posts. This started out with me giving a observation of what was typical and what was not typical based on many years of studying the subject. You are getting off track in that you are talking about later years and not 67. We see what you are talking about more starting in 1969 production with DO marked (1970) suspension parts parts etc. typically being used on Shelby's and Boss cars and of course various 71 marked parts used in 70 as you experienced. 1967 production is what this thread is about which is not the same and where I see instances of such things happening much more rarely and certainly not typically especially for the part in question. I am still learning all of the time but I suppose since I study multiple years (65-70 Shelby's mainly) and build on the information contributions of other peers on the subject help me better see the patterns and progression of parts and production evolution that others that aren't familiar with the earlier years don't see. There are many others that see these same patterns and production evolution.
;D
It isn't that way.
There is a clear and ever danger in stating categorically for something like this that it could not have come on the car.
I would feel comfortable to read a statement that the C0 part number is what is EXPECTED on the car and I would AGREE with that.
What is going on really, if you can back out far enough to put yourself into "an Architect of the Universe" position, is that others are coming here, for different reasons other than as being "part of the sport", in order to build their "Investment Quality Portfolio".
They are not looking to advertise their "100 point car", they want a 1000 point correct car. That invites the purveyors to demand things like $699,999, for a B9 car.
While there are many more things going on that are changing our "hobby" that is way beyond our control, the overall movement in the "valuation process" of pricing these cars is legitimized by the "Concourse" segment.
In SAAC's case, that actually accounts for something less then 1% of the membership according to some.
Certainly that is a player and seems to show in the overall turnouts at the SAAC national conventions.
So in regards to recently asked questions asked here, such as, what are the acceptable date codes on bumpers, rocker panels, oil filter adapters and the likes, those folks are looking for instruction manuals on how to build a car. Good luck on that, and maybe if that was possible, that is even beyond a 1,000 point car and heading towards a 10,000 point car..."of investment quality"?
I have always enjoyed reading your posts and learning from them. You are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and generally forthcoming...mostly. That's ok. No one is perfect and no one is expected to be, but this (too lengthy) statement from me is just a caution to us all, not just a criticism of you, not to feed the beast that is so surely to make all of these cars just museum pieces any sooner then they are already headed towards.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 25, 2025, 09:46:48 AM;D
It isn't that way.
There is a clear and ever danger in stating categorically for something like this that it could not have come on the car.
I would feel comfortable to read a statement that the C0 part number is what is EXPECTED on the car and I would AGREE with that.
What is going on really, if you can back out far enough to put yourself into "an Architect of the Universe" position, is that others are coming here, for different reasons other than as being "part of the sport", in order to build their "Investment Quality Portfolio".
They are not looking to advertise their "100 point car", they want a 1000 point correct car. That invites the purveyors to demand things like $699,999, for a B9 car.
While there are many more things going on that are changing our "hobby" that is way beyond our control, the overall movement in the "valuation process" of pricing these cars is legitimized by the "Concourse" segment.
In SAAC's case, that actually accounts for something less then 1% of the membership according to some.
Certainly that is a player and seems to show in the overall turnouts at the SAAC national conventions.
So in regards to recently asked questions asked here, such as, what are the acceptable date codes on bumpers, rocker panels, oil filter adapters and the likes, those folks are looking for instruction manuals on how to build a car. Good luck on that, and maybe if that was possible, that is even beyond a 1,000 point car and heading towards a 10,000 point car..."of investment quality"?
I have always enjoyed reading your posts and learning from them. You are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and generally forthcoming...mostly. That's ok. No one is perfect and no one is expected to be, but this (too lengthy) statement from me is just a caution to us all, not just a criticism of you, not to feed the beast that is so surely to make all of these cars just museum pieces any sooner then they are already headed towards.
I agree with what you say which is why, if you review my text I try to stay away from "stating categorically " by using the words typical,typically and rarely to name a few.
Hi again 67 fans,
One thing overlooked by this discussion is Warranty replacement. If Doug's car had an oil leak or pressure concern when new, and the adapter was the fault it would explain why a C8 part was on an engine built in 67. And if this was done when the car was new it would appear "original"
You would need to know the complete history and it is a rare find in today's world. Hope this helps people understand what makes it so important to document everything.As well how important it is to have certain judging standards and stick to them. Just my 2 cents
R.R.
"Concours"
Quote from: Coralsnake on November 25, 2025, 10:34:33 AM"Concours"
I stand.corrected. i could never spell.
I cant.claim the C8 is original to the car.
I am pointing out only that the part has a date on it where it does fit into the timetable in which Ford built the engine.
I have found the FE's in particular to have more of these parts with dating conflicts that shouldnt exist, but do.
To find a verifiable "untouched" 67 GT500 would be like finding "Nessie", the Lockness "monster" at this point?
Would it have a date code too?🫤
Quote from: TA Coupe on November 24, 2025, 11:16:08 PMI'll throw a little something into this mix also. I have a 70 Mustang, but when we pulled the radio out, it was a D1 part number, and my mother and I have had it since new, so I know that it was never changed out. It is not hard at all for me to imagine that a part made for next year's cars were put on the year before cars.Because they ran out and they already had parts for the next year that would work. If a car was made near the end of production.I could see this happening,But I have not paid attention to what month the car is that we were talking about.
Roy
Very possible, great explanation
Quote from: TA Coupe on November 24, 2025, 11:16:08 PMI'll throw a little something into this mix also. I have a 70 Mustang, but when we pulled the radio out, it was a D1 part number, and my mother and I have had it since new, so I know that it was never changed out. It is not hard at all for me to imagine that a part made for next year's cars were put on the year before cars.Because they ran out and they already had parts for the next year that would work. If a car was made near the end of production.I could see this happening,But I have not paid attention to what month the car is that we were talking about.
Roy
I would suspect that this is not a rare occurrence at all? No one really noticed original date codes until we all got into this seeking originality thing now.
Now we even want "original bolts" with the original finish and head markings.
It's a good thing that there is no way to determine if an original tire still has original air in it. We can't do that now...right? ???
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 25, 2025, 09:46:48 AMWhile there are many more things going on that are changing our "hobby" that is way beyond our control, the overall movement in the "valuation process" of pricing these cars is legitimized by the "Concourse" segment.
In SAAC's case, that actually accounts for something less then 1% of the membership according to some.
Certainly that is a player and seems to show in the overall turnouts at the SAAC national conventions.
Of course using this logic, you would have to also believe that racing or at least putting your car on a track at a convention represents only a very very small percentage of the membership also. Same thing for buying and selling of parts and so on. Even to the point of a very small representation at the whole even of members. :)
Of course you don't have to participate in any of these individual events or parts of the convention to enjoy, learn, have fun or appreciate those that do take part. For example, you might have two dozen or so concours cars like we did this year but hundreds of members taking part in viewing, talking and just enjoying that part of the convention.
Sorry to get off thread but thought a comment was warranted
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 25, 2025, 01:32:00 PMIt's a good thing that there is no way to determine if an original tire still has original air in it. We can't do that now...right? ???
Don't think we (SAAC) have the tools for that but believe the tools are out there. Read that they were testing the "air" found in bubbles in the ice in glaziers so guess that same science could be applied to your question
Stop it Jeff please, no need to raise the bar any higher.
Quote from: trotrof1 on November 25, 2025, 05:55:10 PMStop it Jeff please, no need to raise the bar any higher.
Just responding to a question. :) Wasn't my idea though someone always seems to bring it up. ::)