Messages

Very good information.  One question, other than the Mag Star handle, is the change over date known for the standard handle design(13/16")?

Very late at least at San Jose. The reason being I have seen a number of very late 67 Shelby's which had the tear drop style lug wrench.

I understand that this not considered a big deal in Europe as it is commonplace to rebuild a wreaked race car or classic out of virtually nothing. A different kind of example but similar in context is that I have heard from builders that salvage titled Ford GT's are rebuilt with the intention of selling over in Europe as they don't care about the salvage title status as long as the car looks good. I heard the rebuilt salvage title ford GT's sell for comparable US non salvage title money over there.

Centered? How big? Any pics of original one?
Thanks

Sorry don't wait on me. I don't have one in my parts bin to take a picture of and all of my pictures are far enough away from the intake that you can only make out the hex shape and not the dimple. They are too low of resolution to see even when you blow it up.

Please do not feed the Troll.

[represented as CSX3272]

.... the documented history is a blessing or a curse?

This car is nothing more than an Anglis built AC that McClusky illegally transferred a CSX VIN tag onto. NOT the first time that's happened, at least this time they had the original tag for this "restoration".

This BAT statement tells it all "moved to Europe, where it has reportedly been represented as CSX3272."

So the way I understand it there are two cars one on Bat being auctioned and another that was built from unused scrapes from the first resurrection that is now on BAT that ended up in Europe claiming to be 3272. Is that correct?

NPD sells AMK. Here is one but without the dimple. I haven't tried it but think you could duplicate the look of the dimple in the middle with a rounded head punch and a hammer. https://www.npdlink.com/product/plug-38-npt-hex-head/167431  .FYI for those reading so that there is no confusion I have only seen the hex shape plugs on FE aluminum intakes . The 289 aluminum intakes used a different shape plug.

The version with "Shelby" in place of the "Cobra" was made after car production ended. Carroll was trying to make some money. He did.

For clarification the Shelby name started appearing on intakes and other items in later 67 for sale in his catalogs etc. It is unclear if the introduction of those Shelby marked parts was after 67 production stopped or not. Shelby name aluminum parts were also sold while 68 and 69/70 Shelby production was going on. Meanwhile Ford continued to market intakes with the Cobra name on into late 69 if not 70. I am not for sure but that might be when just the name FORD began being used in place of Cobra on the intake and oil pans.   

The thrill of 558 rather lies in what it was than what it is.

That is a good sentiment.

With all of the so called NOS parts used and what we know of how many of those vary from assemblyline and disregarding and movie set modifications it will be interesting to see how assemblyline correct (which would be fitting) that they made the rest of the car.

Selling an aluminum Cobra intake.  There are so many variations of these that I'm not certain what I have.  Perhaps someone on the forum will recognize this one.  Nice clean piece.  Has not been blasted or painted.  $800 plus shipping.

Yes it is one of the last over the counter service replacements never used on a production car . The 67 and later thermactor compatible , open plenum and different engineering number identify it as such.

Has it been reported yet who bought the Hero car at the auction?

I would feel a lot better about the authentication if Kevin had viewed the car before it was restored. According to the videos online, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I haven't talked to Kevin about the car, so maybe its just other people saying he "authenticated" the car.  There is a big difference between saying the numbers are correct and authenticating in my mind.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Kevin authenticated the VIN number and didn't authenticated the car.

Here's my take on the blue engine.

6S213 was sent from S.A. to McFaydens Co. (Omaha, NE) on 10/15/65. It was apparently used as a demonstrator. Among other warranty claims is an engine rebuild dated 12/17/65 with McFaydens shown as the owner at that time. (BTW, the engine had only 608 miles on it, and the block was NOT replaced.) The next warranty claim is dated 2/16/66 for leaking seals and gasket. Ralph Barbee is shown as the owner on that form. So, Ralph Barbee (the first owner) must have bought the car sometime between 12/17/65 and 2/16/66 – AFTER the engine rebuild. Ralph eventually sold to Jim Cruden, and is said to have told Jim the engine was always blue. There is supposed to be some proof of that, but if there is, I've never seen it.

So, we know all the 289HP engines were painted black at Ford when 6S213 was produced at San Jose. Yet we have an original owner saying the engine in 6S213 was always blue. How do we reconcile those two facts? Here's my theory...

The engine was black from San Jose, and from Shelby American; then painted blue during the warranty rebuild at McFaydens – BEFORE being sold to the first owner. So, whether it should be black or blue now is a matter of choice. It left Shelby American as black, but many people feel that the condition when sold to the first owner is the concours standard. I can see both sides of that. Maybe one of our concours judges will want to enlighten us on that issue.

BTW, I know the Registry shows Ralph Barbee as purchasing the car on 11/20/65, but Pardee tells me that can't be the correct date.

My two cents.
Steve Sloan

Steve, in concours when something out of the ordinary is claimed to be original then typically reasonable proof for the claim is expected and required. We have found in the past that original owner recollection can be problematic. For example Carroll Shelby's recollection has been proven to be flawed on various things. Consequently typically the owner recollection is supported by other evidence. Second hand hearsay is typically not considered evidence by itself. A theory about a possible scenario of a dealership painting a engine is just that a theory and typically not considered reasonable evidence. I could come up with a just as valid and more likely of a theory that the owner wanted to justify the non original appearance by saying it was always that color. That is a scenario that has been proven time and time again to be found true on other car claims of originality. Theories are problematic and not given much weight at least typically not given much weight with all of the Mustang and Shelby venues that I have judged with. I also wanted to point out that in 12/65 when the engine was repainted that black engine paint in spray cans etc. was most likely more available then the new for 66 production Ford dark blue. FYI in this particular case back when it was first judged nothing was ever said about a engine rebuild prior to delivery or other evidence supporting that the engine was originally blue from the factory or repainted prior to delivery. There was no evidence offered other than the second hand hearsay evidence for the extraordinary claim that it was always blue. I hate to be cynical but after hearing countless first and second hand stories about 427 factory or dealer installs ,original paxton installs ,claims of numerous non typical parts as original etc. it is no wonder why extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as a friend has indelibly etched into my brain.   

Bob, to be clear when you say you use it over multiple finishes are referring to the red layout dye or the opaque staining color.thanks as always. Gary

Red layout dye.

Very nice clean factory original 69 70 trunk mat great for a survivor car. 375.00 plus shipping. PM me for any questions. Thank you for looking.