I'm trying to find an export brace to put on my GT350. I purchased an original from an older gentleman that use to restore/modify them back in the eighties. He could not recall what year it came off of but was 💯 positive it is real.
#1 Can anyone tell me what year it is I have?
#2 would this be considered correct/incorrect on my 68 GT350?
Thanks
Quote from: Kapracing on February 27, 2026, 02:32:56 PMI'm trying to find an export brace to put on my GT350. I purchased an original from an older gentleman that use to restore/modify them back in the eighties. He could not recall what year it came off of but was 💯 positive it is real.
#1 Can anyone tell me what year it is I have?
#2 would this be considered correct/incorrect on my 68 GT350?
Thanks
You don't want that one.Yes it most likely genuine however someone has modified for a different bolt pattern. Wide spaced is for 65/66 and narrow spaced is for 67/68 Shelby's. They either took a narrow spaced one and modified it to fit wide spaced 65/66 or took a wide spaced one and modified it to fit narrow spaced 67/68. Regardless they never were fitted on the cars from the factory with two bolt patterns. That export brace would be points deducted in concours.
It would not be correct for any year as it has been modified to have both bolt patterns.
Roy
Weld up the holes and use it
Looks like an early equal spaced with extra holes . 1965 1966/ By the time your done fixing it it would be smarter to buy a good one . for a 68
Ok just curious on this post from Concours Mustang forum. Remember guys I'm just trying to learn here, so if you don't mind explaining what I found here concerning the export braces with dual patterns.
https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=27419.0
Quote from: Kapracing on February 27, 2026, 05:28:41 PMOk just curious on this post from Concours Mustang forum. Remember guys I'm just trying to learn here, so if you don't mind explaining what I found here concerning the export braces with dual patterns.
https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=27419.0
Duel pattern never came on a Shelby from the factory. Those are examples of modified braces. The different size holes is one indication that it was not factory done.
The 1968 export brace only has four holes at the cowl
Do you happen to know where the export brace came from. a car?
We've discussed this elsewhere and though I would agree with others for use on a 68 and to not use it in its current configuration or to make the extra holes go away. But IMO there seems to be evidence that some cars (Mustangs and possibly Shelby's) did receive these at one point. Possibly using up earlier ones for exports on 67's or some reason like that.
See you found that thread.
That is why where this one came from is important or to explain it as a owner modified part.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 27, 2026, 05:34:02 PMQuote from: Kapracing on February 27, 2026, 05:28:41 PMOk just curious on this post from Concours Mustang forum. Remember guys I'm just trying to learn here, so if you don't mind explaining what I found here concerning the export braces with dual patterns.
https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=27419.0
Duel pattern never came on a Shelby from the factory. Those are examples of modified braces. The different size holes is one indication that it was not factory done.
Thank you for the clarification 😎
Quote from: Coralsnake on February 27, 2026, 05:34:54 PMThe 1968 export brace only has four holes at the cowl
Thank you 😎
If an owner made an extraordinary claim that a modified brace was factory on a given car then extraordinary proof would be a reasonable expectation .
Quote from: J_Speegle on February 27, 2026, 05:38:43 PMDo you happen to know where the export brace came from. a car?
We've discussed this elsewhere and though I would agree with others for use on a 68 and to not use it in its current configuration or to make the extra holes go away. But IMO there seems to be evidence that some cars (Mustangs and possibly Shelby's) did receive these at one point. Possibly using up earlier ones for exports on 67's or some reason like that.
See you found that thread.
That is why where this one came from is important or to explain it as a owner modified part.
Guy just turned 100 years old last week. He could not remember the year but was adamant it was from a real Shelby. That's why he had saved it all these years. I've bought buddy bar valve covers Shelby oil pan and air cleaners from him in the past. All legit parts. Some days he's sharp as a tack others not so much...
Quote from: Kapracing on February 27, 2026, 05:55:24 PMQuote from: J_Speegle on February 27, 2026, 05:38:43 PMDo you happen to know where the export brace came from. a car?
We've discussed this elsewhere and though I would agree with others for use on a 68 and to not use it in its current configuration or to make the extra holes go away. But IMO there seems to be evidence that some cars (Mustangs and possibly Shelby's) did receive these at one point. Possibly using up earlier ones for exports on 67's or some reason like that.
See you found that thread.
That is why where this one came from is important or to explain it as a owner modified part.
Guy just turned 100 years old last week. He could not remember the year but was adamant it was from a real Shelby. That's why he had saved it all these years. I've bought buddy bar valve covers Shelby oil pan and air cleaners from him in the past. All legit parts. Some days he's sharp as a tack others not so much...
One thing to consider is just because a part comes off of a Shelby doesn't necessarily mean that it was on that Shelby from the factory
Rarely will i go against the Speegle word ......But 1967 /1968 "shelbys " would use same wide spaced export brace so even if it was early 68 it would have the 68 67 style. the 65 66 style is really not a direct fit without the cowl brace and equal spaced holes . but the 67 68 will fit back to 65 with wide spacing and no cowl brace . It would have made more sense to drill the cowl on the cars with even spaced export rather than the export brace.
Quote from: Coralsnake on February 27, 2026, 04:15:40 PMWeld up the holes and use it
I have done this in the past. Tig welded the holes not used, ground smooth and painted.
Quote from: gt350shelb on February 27, 2026, 06:26:04 PMRarely will i go against the Speegle word ......But 1967 /1968 "shelbys " would use same wide spaced export brace so even if it was early 68 it would have the 68 67 style. the 65 66 style is really not a direct fit without the cowl brace and equal spaced holes . but the 67 68 will fit back to 65 with wide spacing and no cowl brace . It would have made more sense to drill the cowl on the cars with even spaced export rather than the export brace.
Just sharing what has been found and documented on 1967 Mustangs and Shelbys. Most if not all unrestored cars so at this point with these groups from specific production periods at specific plants there seems to be evidence of the possibility that some older stock may have been repurposed. Yes you could have the guys on the line redrill the cowl holes but the plant managers may not have been willing to slow down the line for a hand full of these export braces but instead have a worker, off the line, just redrill a stack of export braces so that it would not disturb the line in any way.
Knowing some of these cars I found it difficult to believe that a pas owner lost the original export brace somehow and purchased an earlier one from Ford later int he cars life when most if not all of the early stock with the even set holes had been depleted in the system.
A number of these that have been documented are from 67 export built Mustangs and some Shelby's. Would not be the first time we discovered something out of the ordinary. Think a similar thought was put forward the other day with the carpeted package tray discussed in the 65 GT350 section.
Each of us have to choose how much evidence is needed or value placed on the findings for ourself. Really should take the time and see if I have any more current examples that should be posted on that thread at that other site.
Again have not heard, seen or believe this would have taken place during 68 production
Hi,
Just thinking that it would be simple to prep-paint-install, and don't worry about the additional holes
They will just become a very interesting conversation piece and should not cause any trouble. Your choice. Must agree with Jeff as we both have only seen a few 67 cars built with this part. Doubt it will
Show up on a 68 anytime soon ;) What happened to the original on/from your car?
Have often wondered why the later cars are without this brace. Must have been the bean counters in action
R.R.
Ockham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue. That principle is of two competing theories, the simpler explanation is typically the correct one. In this case what is more likely, a purpose made factory brace with out of the ordinary two different bolt patterns ,no record in Ford documents of it's duel purpose being made or a past owner modification (especially with different size drilled holes) so as to fit the car it was being used on? Of course you can always invoke the "anything is possible" defense ::) .
As a alternative, and over looking old junk repro's the Scott Drake export brace is made of thick steel same as the Ford brace using Ford prints to make the braces exactly like the original. https://www.kentuckymustang.com/chassis/suspension/export-braces-monte-carlo-bars/export-brace-black-1964-1-2-1970-scott-drake.html#/filter:year:1968 . Compare the work needed to make the modified brace look like factory compared to the 78.00 + shipping price of the nice repro and it is a very viable alternative even if you are spending the hours and materials to do all of the work yourself. The ones that I have seen like this are concours correct in looks.
Is a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?
Quote from: Blackcar on February 28, 2026, 05:04:17 PMIs a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?
Depends on when it was made and the details. Service replacements can and do have different details so comparing the specific part to an original is the place to start rather than a blanket statement IMO
We did a side by side comparison of an original 66 and a NOS/service replacement in a thread a while back. Think it was here or on CMF. Didn't do a search for it here on this site as of yet
Quote from: J_Speegle on February 28, 2026, 05:35:52 PMQuote from: Blackcar on February 28, 2026, 05:04:17 PMIs a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?
Depends on when it was made and the details. Service replacements can and do have different details so comparing the specific part to an original is the place to start rather than a blanket statement IMO
We did a side by side comparison of an original 66 and a NOS/service replacement in a thread a while back. Think it was here or on CMF. Didn't do a search for it here on this site as of yet
+1 . I have seen some late service replacements before they went obsolete that looked terrible . Even though they were serviced with the same number the last service replacements looked dramatically different then the assemblyline parts. In fact they looked as bad as the cheap repros which makes me suspect that is why the repros looked so terrible because the aftermarket copied the last service replacement. It has to do with the thickness of the metal and how the metal was formed.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 28, 2026, 04:26:06 PMOckham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue.
But is this actually "truly problem-solving"? Or rather just a "suggestion" for simplicity sake and expediency; that when encountering multiple theories in competition, that the one with the lesser sum of "assumptions" might be the better bet? Sounds reasonable! But seems to present more as a crutch, as unfortunately does not "actually" present any "fact" or "solution" for which hypothesis might "actually" be true. :-\
And here in this discussion, with either position, there are assumptions being made, and if not and if only "absolutes" on the subject existed, this discussion wouldn't exist, and to say that "typically" something happened, which very well may be true, doesn't actually present for "fact" that something else "never" happened. And one might just be missing something if refusing to venture from a currently accepted norm. :)
So perhaps, before one should say "absolutely not", ask ones' self: how firm is that ground your standing on, and is it "possible", that something else "could" have taken place, and that just because one isn't aware of such, doesn't mean it didn't. ???
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on February 28, 2026, 06:43:24 PMQuote from: Bob Gaines on February 28, 2026, 04:26:06 PMOckham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue.
But is this actually "truly problem-solving"? Or rather just a "suggestion" for simplicity sake and expediency; that when encountering multiple theories in competition, that the one with the lesser sum of "assumptions" might be the better bet? Sounds reasonable! But seems to present more as a crutch, as unfortunately does not "actually" present any "fact" or "solution" for which hypothesis might "actually" be true. :-\
And here in this discussion, with either position, there are assumptions being made, and if not and if only "absolutes" on the subject existed, this discussion wouldn't exist, and to say that "typically" something happened, which very well may be true, doesn't actually present for "fact" that something else "never" happened. And one might just be missing something if refusing to venture from a currently accepted norm. :)
So perhaps, before one should say "absolutely not", ask ones' self: how firm is that ground your standing on, and is it "possible", that something else "could" have taken place, and that just because one isn't aware of such, doesn't mean it didn't. ???
Scott.
Word salad?