What is the correct oil filter adapter fot 67 gt 500 car completed on 4-28-67

[clint67]

What's the correct oil filter adapter for 67 Shelby gt 500 completed by 4-28-67? I found an adapter and curious if it's correct for original adapter matching for the numbers on my car

[Road Reptile]

Hi,
The picture shows a C8 Casting number so this will not be correct for a 1967 build.
Maybe you could trade it for a correct part. Hope this helps.
R.R.

[Bob Gaines]

What's the correct oil filter adapter for 67 Shelby gt 500 completed by 4-28-67? I found an adapter and curious if it's correct for original adapter matching for the numbers on my car

C0AE-6884-A

[pbf777]

      Agreed that it isn't going to be "correct", but if one were intending to "run the car hard", at all, I'd recommend going with the "updated" engineering of the "C8" product, which is more efficient at passing the oil volume, vs. the "CO" item. 

      Scott.

[Bob Gaines]

Agreed that it isn't going to be "correct", but if one were intending to "run the car hard", at all, I'd recommend going with the "updated" engineering of the "C8" product, which is more efficient at passing the oil volume, vs. the "CO" item. 

      Scott.

With that in mind I typically suggest to port out the C0AE casting to look similar to the C8AE version inside passages. It doesn't take too long to do.That way you can have the historic look but with better oil flow. 

[shelbydoug]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a June 67 build date.

[Bob Gaines]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

[pbf777]

With that in mind I typically suggest to port out the C0AE casting to look similar to the C8AE version inside passages. It doesn't take too long to do.

      Yes, one 'can' improve upon the "COAE" port flow, some, . . . . but it doesn't possess the material to make it equal to the later version.   

      And do keep in mind, that apparently F.M.C. had determined that the design needed changing. 

      Scott.

[shelbydoug]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

[Bob Gaines]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

[shelbydoug]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?

[Coralsnake]

Maybe some photos would be helpful?

[Bob Gaines]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?

Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one. 

[shelbydoug]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?

Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one.

I wasn't asking you to answer anything.

I was stating that this one exists and likely isn't the only one.

You viewsa are narrow and inflexible and I would not expect that to change regardless of how you attempt to reverse the tables or the subject.

What you see as typical is only your perspective.

[Bob Gaines]

I have a C8AE adapter with a spring 67 date code. My 67 GT500 has a May 67 build date.

Interesting however for those reading that does not automatically mean that C8AE part in this case came on a 67 production car.

Yes, but the point is, it doesn't mean that it could not have. Particularly if the scenario was that the C8 parts got put in the assembly bins with the C0's.

The date code on this one is suggestive of something of that order.

And my point is for others reading is to not automatically assume your extra ordinary claim would be correct for their 67 GT500. The anything is possible justification is typically a way to explain away a wrong part. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.

The date code on the part existed before the car was built. Why do you presume that it was not in the normal parts availability to build the engine?

Because the examples of what you are insisting which are next year 1968 parts on previous 1967 year cars are extraordinarily rare for any part on a 67 regular production Mustang. Consequently it is not unreasonable to presume that it was a anomaly as a production part and not typical. If you found this on your car it may have already been changed on your engine previously. That is if you are saying it was on your car from the factory and not a early dated part you found in your parts bin. Given the many questions about your car and it's engine components I have answered for you over the years I have gotten the impression that your engine is a typical 67 GT500 that has had parts replaced over time for whatever reason and not a untouched one.

I wasn't asking you to answer anything.

I was stating that this one exists and likely isn't the only one.

You viewsa are narrow and inflexible and I would not expect that to change regardless of how you attempt to reverse the tables or the subject.

What you see as typical is only your perspective.

I love you too Doug.