Messages

Many years ago, coulda been in the SOA era, there was an article I read that recommended the use of Boss 302 base steel wheels. The ones that used the dog dish style hub caps. I presume they were recommended because they were plentiful with some guys replacing them as a day 2 change and offered a performance handling advantage.

Is there something special with the Boss 302 black steel wheels, i.e., width, offset, hub hole, construction that makes them desirable?

Are there unique(ish) markings on them as Pete describes for the '68 Shelby steel wheels?

Do these Boss 302 wheels carry premium because of desirability?

I presume that any '60s/'70s era plain steel wheel will accept '68 Shelby hubcaps. Correct?

When I had my '68 GT500 steering system rebuilt and restored, I sent the steering box, with pitman arm attached, slave cylinder, and control valve to Jim Cowles' Shelby Parts and Restoration, in WI. He did a great job.

I believe that Jessie(sp?), Jim's right hand man and replacement in training, took over operations. He's my recommendation. Check him out.

https://shelbypartsstore.com/

Steve

I think he's referring to this.  Not sure why marti does this

Exactly!!!

Thanks for your reply, Bob. It came across very clearly to me. I am now picking up on what you're putting down.

FYI, in the section of the Marti Report that is titled, "Vehicle Order Image" the Ford VIN is shown on the second line as 7R02S174599.

Immediately below that is the section titled, "Serial Number Information" and the Ford VIN is shown as 7R02Q174599.

On the Marti Report, for my '68 GT500, the numbers in the sections referenced above, are identical.

Not knowing that "Q" was used to designate a 428SI within Ford VINs for '67 GT500s, and not having my reference materials while I'm on vacation, I thought that there was some monkey business going on.

Your explanation was very helpful and educational.

Steve

Thank you for your input and suggestion on helpful reference materials.

Yeah, I'm aware that the '67 Shelby Mustang VINs are different than the '67 Ford Mustang VINs. And yes, I agree that '67 Shelby VINs can be confusing. I also have all the registries. Among my problems, I'm not where they are.

This '67 Shelby's VIN is deciphered on BAT thanks to Brian from The Shelby Research Group (SRG) and the seller for posting it. If I'm not mistaken, the SRG Report does not reference this Shelby by the Ford VIN.

I respectfully ask you to please reread my original question, and review the important details of this online auction. It pertains to something contradictory shown on the Marti Report. The Marti Report (MR) shows a "Q" code on one part of the MR and an "S" code in another section. A '67 Shelby GT500 was built with a 428 SI engine, not a 428CJ "Q" code. I think the Marti Report, and the vehicle Ford VIN, as stamped on the transmission, may have been altered. I was looking for this forum to confirm or refute my suppositions.

Maybe it has, and I not picking up on what the forum is puttin' down.

I hope this explanation helps you understand my question.

So, my gut feeling is there's sumptin fishy in Denmark. This car is bid up to $200k and nobody questioned the VIN. It hurts to watch this happen in broad daylight, in a venue that is viewed by some knowledgeable folks.

A part of me wants to ask the seller to square my possible misunderstanding. Another part of me kinda wants to see how this flushes out and then see if my instinct was correct.

I can't save the world. It's tough enough to live in it.

Hey guys, please help me understand something about VINs on '67 GT500s. My sweet spot is in and among the '68 Shelbys.

This BAT auction shows the Ford VIN on the inner fender and the Marti Report. The inner fender stamping and the transmission stamping show it's a "Q" code. I didn't think that Ford used "Q" or "R" in 1967. The Marti shows the Ford VIN with an "S" code, in the VEHICLE ORDER IMAGE header coding and "Q" in the SERIAL NUMBER INFORMATION box. Using the colloquial, "Whaz up wit dat?" Is someone messing with potential buyers?

The car seems to utilize CJ exhaust manifolds and exhaust pipes as well. That seems like a nice day 2 mod, so maybe the engine is a CJ with the dual quad intake and carbs.

It looks like a nice car being bought for concours/near concours/kinda near concours money.

Steve

I read on one of the iterations of this forum that the pattern(s) of the 1968 Mustang convertible top fabric were altered from what they were back when the cars were originally produced. In addition to the change in dimensions to the top fabric components, the rear bow specification was changed. I believe the changes to the fabric components and the rear bow placement dimension were required to take some of the stress off the rear window seam, thereby lessening the need to detach the folding window from the fabric top.

I put this out there in a cryptic way, not naming names, hoping that those who wrote knowledgeably of this issue back then will confirm, refute, or explain:

  1.  That the specs were, or were not changed from the original design and rear bow spec.

And,

  2.  If the top fabric and rear bow height were changed by the top manufacturers, to lessens the stresses on the folding window, is there still a need to detach the folding window before the top is retracted?

And,

  3.  If the top fabric dimensions were changed, will a convertible top manufacturer provide a convertible top made to the original specs, for those who want the "as manufactured" look?

I printed the thread and filed it in a safe place, so I can get to it later but...

I know of a few convertible owners who won't retract the top on there cars because it creates wrinkles and they don't want a wrinkled top, so I don't doubt that others will separate the folding glass before retracting the top, whether or not it's needed as a precaution.

Happy Motoring

Steve

Looking for a correct radiator for my 02/14/1968 build date GT500, 4-spd, with A/C to replace the generic one currently in use.

What is the difference between the L, L1 & L2 suffix designations, and which is most appropriate for my car?

Steve

Thank you Bob.

I'm searching for NOS, or best looking reproduction, key blanks for my 02/14/1968 built Shelby. I'm being specific regarding the date because in my search I read that the early car keys had a simple round hole and later keys had elongated holes. (See below)

Did the early keys and the late keys have the Ford logo on one side and the, "FAMILY OF FINE CARS" motto, in all caps, on the other?

Both styles seem to be readily available.

There are several sources for tool design and tool acquisition information. Here is a link to the Vintage Mustang Forum that gives very specific tool design info. If you look deep enough in the web, you'll see examples of how some guys use a section of 2" x 4" lumber.

1st Gen Mustang Upper Control Arm Support Tool

Makes me want to get back in the '66 saddle again. I had 6S2295. It was also sold by McCafferty Ford. I like the chrome wheels on the late cars.

Steve

Now, seeing that good info has long legs and life span, and a properly executed search has returned the desired info, are we still having to accept that the info on SAAC Forum 1 is truly lost? Reading the discussion with contributions from our Heavy Hitters Dan, Drew, Doug, and Randy certainly adds credence to a topic where respected opinions matter.

I think you may have several options. If the clutch and pressure plate are original to the car, it may be larger than what is currently available. I believe originals are 11-1/2" dia as opposed to 11" dia.

Another alternative is to replace the 3-finger pressure plate and compatible clutch disc with a diaphragm pressure plate and compatible clutch disc.

The guy that installed my GT500 drive train used the diaphragm and clutch disc. So far, it seems okay, but I've read that it may malfunction by not re-engaging the clutch disc at high RPM shifts. To be on the safe side, I retained my 3-finger pressure plate and worn clutch disc, should I decide to get them rebuilt.

Steve