Messages

Got mine Thursday in NorCal

..... or a Shelby tag

A tag by itself has no provenance. It's only a tag that at one time was attached to a Mustang that went through SA. The registrar can undoubtably match up the SA VIN with the Ford VIN but without the owner being able to cite the Ford VIN the car does not exist.

And even then, those alone does not make, what ever it is, a Shelby or a car that was a Shelby at one point as pointed out in the letter that is sent with the confirmation letter sent to those that inquire.

Another example in descriptions as to how words mean different things to different people.

"A restoration was undertaken in 1993 that"

Would be fun to see up close and personal and yes looks like an honest car from only the pictures and so typical of what many 100K or even a 200K plus mile California cars look like. Not counting the repaint and engine compartment details

A bonus is that Monterey can be nice in the Spring 

We'll see what the BAT boys do with this one

Interesting that the car would have those license plates. Something in its history likely explains that. As for a "Calif" car sure has a lot of rust and in some "normal" (for other areas of the country) and some odd spots (possibly coastal for a while).  Possibly located for a time in multiple areas.  Maybe it was taken to another state for a while then returned.

Typical look of the interior and upper exterior paint from being stored outside in the south west though.

Interesting to see

Just to be clear the Snake one line version is the last used of the three styles used in 67.

Any idea of  the date or Shelby number when this occurred? I understand this may be a fuzzy number/date -- just like other things at SA in 67.

Fuzzy line. SA didn't keep track of things like this and it is up to enthusiasts to document with observations. I would be interested if someone else can put a pin on the timeline.

I cant pinpoint a timeline, but I can put a number to the sill plate. That is a picture of my car pre restoration taken by JEFF as 1189 was being documented back in the day. Thanks Jeff!

From what I've got the change was much earlier than 1189. Just an example of one of those "later" versions

Thanks Jeff. What years? 69/70 only?

   Roy

Can't think of where they were used any other place than that

These are some NOS ones that I have, I  believe I have some others around somewhere. What is the application for black ones.

     Roy

There ones sort of in the middle of the picture above the sill plate labels and 69 dash labels (GT350 and GT500)?

Those are metal tags that were attached to the drivers side door jamb - rear - above the Ford warranty/door tag


Like this

[I assume not?]

Hey guys,

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread... but on a 67 Shelby... completed at SJ late December and completed initially at SAI Jan 17, 1967... would that car be "early" enough to need the "late 66" style sill plate emblem? I assume not?

I have an NOS set of the two line, coil snake version which I planned on using but just wanted to make sure that the CS emblem was only for VERY early cars.

Kind regards,
Vern

In "judging" I would be looking for the "two line, coil snake version" as it seems you are thinking too.

That is what shows up in my collection of unrestored cars also. Believe you are very safe with that choice. Not that JD need back up on this 

I had my 69 GT350 judged a while ago and a few items were listed as being incorrect.

The front brake calipers need to be blacked out which I understand. My question is, what about the brake shoes that show thru the rim?

Haven't seen any effort by workers on the line to black out the front shoes.

Like above here is an earlier conversation

https://www.saac.com/forum/index.php?topic=7996.msg66771#msg66771

We likely have more pictures of original examples since that all was posted but it provides some of the details your asking about

I had my 69 GT350 judged a while ago and a few items were listed as being incorrect................

The report shows I am missing the ID tag on intake. Wouldn't that have been left on the original intake when replaced with the aluminum?

Engine aluminum ID tag was attached with the coil so intake really has nothing to do with that feature.

Search is sometimes your friend 

https://www.saac.com/forum/index.php?topic=31219.msg224218#msg224218

I would love to see what the floors look like without the rugs in place.

Just look from below - that will provide some insight and other evidence of repair, reattachment and replacement in a number of areas. 

Believe you want lug nut #2

4:30PM SPECIAL FEATURE 1965 SHELBY GT350 FASTBACK #S433 - EG Auctions
https://bid.egauctions.com/4-30PM-SPECIAL-FEATURE-1965-SHELBY-GT350-FASTBACK-S433_i59269860

"A rust free single exhaust body was used for some of the panels"

Interesting disclosure but good that they/the owner choose to acknowledge at least something it in the ad

Have what appears to be a replacement tank for 69 GT 500 has a date that appears to be 1-20-83 armco stamp. Number on top of tank C9ZZ-9002-A. Were there 2 different manufacturers of tanks, I thought they had the USS trademark stamp?

Remember as a service part the contract for making replacement tanks would have gone out to multiple suppliers for the bid and often more than one company got the contract since this took place every so many years. Same thing went for the company/companies used to supply the material to the stamping plant so apparently Armco got the contract to supply the base material in the early 80's. There were a number of companies that supplied the material over the decades.

I am not sure if it would change any of the fan boys minds, but do a little research before you start saying "drive it like it is"

https://barnfinds.com/the-ultimate-mustang-barn-find-1968-shelby-gt500-kr/

Well that explains some of the heavy repair and panel replacement under the car shown, kind of, in the ad BAT pictures