Messages

FWIW I have been a SAAC member off-and-on since the early '80s. Off more than on I'm sure.

In fact, my membership just ran out. I never received one of those SAAC Member "badges" on the old forum (which was fine).

I don't own a Shelby and don't plan to. My family has always been a Ford/Mercury family and I am fascinated by the design, engineering and racing history of Shelby American/Shelby Automotive and it's interconnections with the Mercury Cougars.

I came here to learn and share.

I've met some outstanding people on the forum and through that contact have been able to contribute my services, advice and/or images from my personal collection to several different efforts at restoring, promoting and educating people about the cars we all love.

I have gotten invaluable advice and learned more since joining these SAAC forum(s) than all my years in the club before that.

I don't plan on maintaining a full-time membership, so if that becomes required to contribute here then, well I guess I couldn't be member.

Not saying that is any great loss, just wanted to make the point of what would be gained (?) or lost by the changes being discussed. There is lots of stuff going on behind the scenes that isn't apparent to those that maybe aren't as into making connections and sharing.

- Phillip

Let me join my voice to the "please come back Brian" chorus.

There are those that contribute and those that don't - "givers" and "takers" if you will - and Brian is most definitely a giver.

He has graciously shared all of the XR7S, XR7-G and GT-E information that he as uncovered in his extensive research with me and the Mercury Cougar community at large.

- Phillip

Its likely Ford was involved, because the cars seem to have went through dealerships.

Im still trying to determine if they were sold as "used" or " demonstrators" or something else?

Forgive me if this was covered and I missed it, but I'm curious if the "it was crushed" theory emanated from official written documentation from Ford?

- Phillip

It's all kind of a fascinating situation where at some point, some person who has the opportunity does something that, if not out right illegal it certainly borders on unethical. I'm sure their motivation wasn't to preserve history, but to put a few extra bucks in their pockets.

But the result is that something of huge historical significance gets saved.

Not unlike concerts that were illegally recorded (bootlegged) and then 50 years later the bands actively seek them out to be included in official and exhaustive retrospective releases.

- Phillip

I know of another Courtesy Ford card that had those wheels, it was a 1968 KR.

If I'm understanding correctly, Little Red was assigned a Shelby VIN while the Green Hornet was not?

Also regarding the Spyder wheels and their association with drag racing - Brian Styles mentioned to me how Little Red's passenger quarter has a nice wrinkle that's been there since the oldest known time pictures. That wrinkle and it's location is a common side-effect of hard-launching these cars.

- Phillip

Popular with drag racers like Ed Schartman.

I tend to think of them as '69 & '70 vintage.

Wonder if they were introduced in '68?



- Phillip

A miracle for sure - never thought I'd see the day that Little Red was found.

Awesome doesn't even describe it....

- Phillip

My wife has an elderly aunt in Stockton CA who I fly out to check up on every once-in-awhile. I've been to the IN-N-OUT burger there several times and if that artwork is hanging in that location then I somehow missed it.

I would think it is no coincidence that Shelby autos are featured - makes me think the owner or interior designer had a thing for the mark or maybe just the artist who's work they chose to feature?

- Phillip

I'm exclusively Apple and have never had a problem orienting my photos.

And that artwork is really neat! I've never seen it before (no IN-N-OUT burgers in Richmond Va.).

Anyone know why so much Shelby-centric art in those establishments?

- Phillip

Love a white '67 with inboards.

- Phillip

For those interested, some more information here:

https://gte.mercurycougarregistry.com/performance-features/

- Phillip

FWIW, here is GT-E Registrar Jim Pinkerton's post from a similar thread that appeared on the long lost forum -

I am new to your forum, having heard about the discussion of Cougar GT-E 427 engines from a fellow cougar-o-phile.  I am the Cougar GT-E Registrar.  When I started the Registry nearly 18 years ago, there were only 58 GT-Es accounted for.  At that time Kevin Marti didn't even have the production database, and so there were lots of numbers out there in the press that were totally wrong.  I have a subcontract with Ford through Kevin Marti and I have all of the information on all of the GT-Es produced.  By the by, there were 394 made, 357 of them with the 427 engine and only 37 with the 428 CJ.  I've accounted for 260 of them to date.  From what I've seen in the discussion so far there is some concern about the date codes on early Cougar 427 engines (and perhaps other concerns), although I'm not clear on exactly what the question(s) is/are.  We all want documentation to show the history of rare cars; but alas some of the documentation out there, if we include sales brochures and articles in magazines of the day, are notoriously inaccurate (for a whole variety of reasons).  That said,  once I know specifically what the questions are, we can discuss what evidence you (or anyone else for that matter) might accept, to show what was produced, when, etc.  And while I'm more than willing to exchange information in an open forum like this, I know too that some folks may prefer a more restricted venue, in which case I welcome any and all communications concerning GT-Es through my regular email address  pinktwo at att.net

I know some folks have raised the issue of engine date codes for GT-Es.  Since that first run of engines was cast date coded in July, 1967 the question seems to be why did the regular production GT-Es (not the 10 early pre-regular production prototypes, factory mules, whatever you want to call them) not start until Jan 1, 1968.  Well the truth is that I don't know for sure, at least in terms of some F-L-M document that explains it.  Speculation includes the fact that FIA papers were filed and approved for the 427 engine for racing purposes, and that paperwork "required" a run of 500 units. Once that approval was granted, production could begin.  It makes some logical sense (and that is why it might be correct - Smiley -- that L-M wouldn't want to produce regular production cars until that time (having tested the car in terms of marketing through model-year introduction shows etc.

Let me try to answer the questions you've posed.  You ask about the date of approval for the homologation papers -- I presume by that you mean the FIA papers I mentioned in my post above?  If so, then I "think" the date stamp says August 24th, 1968.  I say I "think" because the copy of the document that I have is like alot of machine copies, hard to read, especially inked date stamps (all 15 pages).  I've put a call into a guy who may have a better copy, so perhaps clarification coming.  These papers, now that I look at them again, specify 1000 units (not the 500 that I thought I recalled -- sorry about that).  The papers say they were started on August 23rd, 1967.  Certainly only 357, 427 units were produced.  We know that someone at L-M pulled the plug on racing in that division, but I don't know who, or exactly when.  From what I've seen, the July, 1967 date casted engines were definitely available for the 10 preproduction prototypes (12) with 04G production dates, and nearly all of the units produced in January and February of '68 (220)had them.  As to who was in charge of the GT-E program (if in fact it were a separate program) I do not know, but certainly wish I did.  I've never seen an official document on the program; only the odd aside mentioned. Hope this helps.

There were only 4, 427 GT-Es produced in June.  All the rest were between late February (approx. 23rd) and the end of May.  Of the original engines that I am aware of most, if not all, were Dec 1967 date coded engines. A typical C6 trans tag for a GT-E would be: Line 1 - PGB W; Line 2 - C1 1408.  I don't know how this compares to other car lines.  The servo was either an R or a D, and it had the aluminum tailshaft, unlike the later 428 CJ equipped GT-Es which had the cast iron tailshaft. Oh, and should I mention the heads.  Originally 6090-J, and then about February 15th they ran out of those and switched to the new CJ head, 6090-N, but with only 14 exhaust bolt holes (for the 390 GT exhaust manifolds, as you mentioned).  By the by, the FIA paper ink stamps are illegible, but the document itself says "Recognition valid from 1st Jan. 1968."
Jim

I just replaced one bulb in my '68 Cougar and took the old one to an Advance Auto.

The guy said they stock them because they are still commonly used in trailers.

- Phillip

Great info - thanks for taking the time to put that together and post it.

- Phillip

Here is the second half of the ad.

Gives you an idea of some of the things A.O. Smith was involved with.

- Phillip