Messages

Thanks, Roy. From the other Roy on the forum.

For anyone that may not have noticed, there are buttons that You can click or tap to go to previous or next photos.it's beneath the photo in the link.

      Roy

Or put the cursor over the thumbnails on the right, scroll up/down and click on the photo you want to view. Once loaded, if you click on the photo itself, a somewhat enlarged version will load in it's own separate window.

deathsled,

Such fun, almost wish I was doing it all again. Almost.

I went through what you are about two and a half years or so ago. The original block came with my car but was very rusty. I've posted most of the engine rebuild and subsequent installation (more to come) on my website (S-TechEnt.com/Shelby_Web_Pages//66_GT350H/GT350H.htm and click on Engine Rebuild). Be sure to look for the other stamped date on the oil pan rail above the block engineering number. This is thought to be the date the block was machined. Let us know what you find. Best of luck with the build.

I thought that image looked familiar. I shot that picture at SAAC8 in Dearborn, thanks for giving me credit.

The early conventions were so much different than today's. SAAC8 was a fun one, it included a car show, drag racing, and a high speed event at Ford's old Utica test track.

I like the one piece rear main seal. I wonder if that is usable in a 289 hipo block?

Bob, Yes it works on a Hi-Po. We did it on my original block for 6S817 and I'm happy to report that there are so far, no leaks.

During my last through review of the current 1966 registry, I don't recall seeing any with 10-spokes. At least none jumped out at me. However, I could be wrong. I'd appreciate it if anyone with knowledge to the contrary could provide a VIN for the exception to the rule. Thanks.

I help run the lost and found page with Fred Ballard on the hipo mustang forum by keeping a database of vins people are looking for specifically, 65-67 hipo vins.  A gentleman reached out to me, provided a picture of a vin stamped 289 motor to add to my database.  It was a 6R09K vin so I contacted Howard Pardee (SAAC Registrar) who confirmed it belongs to a 1966 Shelby GT350.  Mr. Pardee put me in contact with the GT350 owner (Damon) and I was able to link up the two parties.

This is why I keep a database.  These wins are very rare but I'm a believer the more vins I record the higher the likelihood we can have more success stories like this.

This sort of thing can only help the hobby. When we pool our collective knoledge, we all win! Great job.

I did develop the information presented on my website in part from both of those sources. Taken together, I think they form a pretty complete picture of the differences between the non-Hi-Po transmission and the Hi-Po. The background information on how this rare beast came to be is interesting.

Contact Roy in the posts on this subject he has extremely detailed drawings and modifications to make a c4 for a HiPo

Thanks, Steve. However, you were also a big help on this project.

Can a C4 be built with all the parts that make it a HI PO?

aboss4tg, Check out the GT350H section of my website for a narative of how I converted a plain jane C4 out of a '67 Mustang to serve duty in my GT350H. Much credit for this information goes to Bob Mannel for his amazing book "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8, 1962-1969" (RPM Press, 2014) as well as others that are listed in my atricle. Link to my website is in my signature.

I would say that a 1966 transmission is the best to start out with as there are some minor differences between that one and the 1967 version I used. If you are using a transmission out of a '65 or '66, the shift kit from Transgo will be different than the one I used. Good luck and please let us know how it goes. You may contact me privatley if you think that will help.

No VIN - however there were differences in the auto trans for the HiPo. The Servo cover is one you can see externally. I think the valve body also had some changes. The "regular" HiPo Mustang and the GT350 used the same trans so nothing Shelby specific to find.

+1. The Hi-Po C4 for a 1966 Hi-Po Mustang is a rare beast indeed. If you can find one, expect to pay a substancial premeum over that of a standard C4.

There were three major differences made by Ford between the high performance C4 and the standard unit that was used with all other non-Hi-Po cars:

• Valve Body — The throttle pressure boost valve spring and intermediate servo accumulator spring were lighter and the separator plate had two holes that were enlarged, one from 0.047 inch to 0.070 inch and the other from 0.125 inch to 0.188 inch.
• Intermediate Servo and Cover — The intermediate servo was larger which provided additional area for the piston face and subsequently more force on the intermediate band which resulted in better 1-2 shifts.  This servo is identified by a large cast "C" on the cover rather than the "A" that the standard Mustang C4 used.  The "A" servo piston is 2.84 inches in diameter and the "C" servo piston is 3.13 inches in diameter.
• Governor — Ford changed the secondary valve in the governor by reducing the weight from about 19 grams to 12 grams, 37% lighter.  This moves the wide open throttle shifts points into the 5800 RPM range.  Contrary to what has sometimes been reported, Ford DID NOT install a lighter spring in the governor to achieve higher shift points.

Good luck in your search, if you find more than one, please let me know as I've been looking a long time for one I can aford. I don't htink that is likely to happen, but I have to ask...

John, No, HEH-N (C5OZ 7003-N) is listed as a 25 spline CR gear box for a 1965 Hi-Po 289 Fairlane, since no such note exists for the HEH-S transmission, that one must be a 28-spline unit. The information source is the Ford MPC. This chart is published on my website. Again, I hope this helps.

Mark, My toploader tag application chart on my website lists this as a close ratio box (P/N C5ZZ 7003-E) for a '65 Mustang before 8/20/1964. No other application listed. Hope this helps.

R.R.,

I do have a copy of that book (signed by both authors, btw) and am familiar with the production issues that Shelby encountered during the year. My question really centers on what paperwork was used, whose form was it, who filled it out or was it computer generated, and that sort of thing? In short, the work flow. I know that there are two sides to this issue, the Ford side and the SA side. So how did the orders come into Ford so they could get the basic car built on the assembly line prior to shipment to SA?  I can't believe that this process did not mirror what Ford had already established. On the SA side, how were the workers instructed as to which cars got which options (as few as they may have been). In 1967, they had the production order. Was there something similar in use for 1965 and 1966? Again, I wouldn't think the the process would change that much year to year and that a new process just appeared for the 1967 model year. Part of the problem is that I've never seen copies of 1965 and 1966 production forms (including DSO) other than what Jeff posted here (thanks, Jeff!).

So what is out there that most of us have never seen? What were the actual documents that were used to build the cars we all love so much? Who did the ordering (Ford, SA, dealer, or some combination thereof), the data entry, the sign-offs, etc.?  That is, the work flow that was part of the daily grind of building new cars. Thanks and I look forward to everyone's response.

Could this be what your looking for Shelby American Order Form?

Jeff,

That looks pretty close and might show the evolution from one form to the next. I wouldn't think that there would be another similar document, but who knows? Do you have any that are filled out? Like I said, I'm trying to understand how the production process differed from year to year. I'd like to see scans of as many as you might have that are filled out.

SA placed bulk special orders to the San Jose assembly plant several times during '65 and '66 production years.  The first 3 cars were 2 orders (1 street car, 2 cars with specific deleted to be built as competition models).  Then there was the big order for the next 110 cars delivered to Venice in late Dec '64.  That included 2 orders: 15 comp builds and 90 street cars.  Those orders were modified from the first orders.  The next orders were placed for the next 100 cars, which would be delivered to LAX towards the end of March '65, another 100 cars.  Those orders were modified from the December orders.  Then there were subsequent orders. 

Howard would know better as to what changes were made to each bulk order.  I have copies of a couple of them.  They mostly note specific things like the SJ plant installing tires provided.  At some point there was an 'A' and 'B' base package defined which they referenced and then changes from those.

Charles,

Wow, now you've really got my interest. I'm fascinated by the process. Coming from an engineering background that also dealt with the production of aircraft, I note some similarities between that subject and controlling the final configuration of the cars as they were shipped.

Would you be willing to share scans? Same reason as stated above. I'm also looking for copies of any DSO sheets anyone might have so I can see how the package code as constructed.

Jeff,

This is in regards to the construction of the 1965 and 1966 cars. My question is, was a version of the form that you show for the 1967 cars also used for the 1965 and/or 1966 cars? D. Mathews would not be of any help in this regard as he deals exclusively with the 1967 cars. Just trying to find out how far back (if at all) the use of this document extends. Again this is NOT a question regarding the 1967 cars. This is a question to aid my understanding of what paperwork was used to order the flow of 1965 and 1966 GT350s. I may have to directly ask Howard on this. Unfortunately, he doesn't post here very often...