Engine color for carryover

[SFM6S087]

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

[Bob Gaines]

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.