8T03S11599900141 on BAT

[5s386]

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1968-shelby-mustang-gt500-convertible-14/

[Coralsnake]

Should be interesting to read the comments on that car

[Bob Gaines]

It did turn out well.

[Coralsnake]

Yes it did, it likes nice.

Do I recall a youtube on this car?

[Bob Gaines]

Yes it did, it likes nice.

Do I recall a youtube on this car?

I don't think so. At least I am not aware of one. I was around the shop off and on while it was being restored. It is one consecutive vin number from my red #140 red convertible which is the main reason I remember it. 

[Bob Gaines]

Vern Estes from this forum is the selling dealer.

[KR Convertible]

And I thought I was close.  181 was built the next day.

[QuickSilverShelby]

Question for Pete, Bob and the other experts:

Vern states that 68's had no VIN's stamped on their blocks and that no 68 came with a block that had a VIN stamp.  It was my understanding that all 68's had VIN's stamped blocks and that the feds had mandated that for 1968.

Can the experts enlighten me please.

QSS

[davez]

Having owned 2 KRs the partial vin  is stamped in the head,  not the block. Would guess that would be the same for non kr 500s .

[Coralsnake]

Vern is correct

The vast majority of cars had the stamping on the head.

[J_Speegle]

Question for Pete, Bob and the other experts:

Vern states that 68's had no VIN's stamped on their blocks and that no 68 came with a block that had a VIN stamp.  It was my understanding that all 68's had VIN's stamped blocks and that the feds had mandated that for 1968.

Since we have other ear and eyes that will read this thread and it will out last the sale currently being discussed thought I would add a comment. First I didn't see where Vern wrote in a response that "that 68's had no VIN's stamped on their blocks and that no 68 came with a block that had a VIN stamp" That would be an incorrect statement. What Vern did write was a true statement as Pete attested to above.

Many comments most of us write or share often need additional information and stipulations especially when quotes are taken out of a larger explanation. As you wrote it "above, that statement is incorrect because yes some 68 production engines received VINs at the auto assembly plants for this year and model the 302's would have had that feature. Not the complete car VIN but a shortened version with the year- plant and Ford sequential number. Rear of the intake on the top of the engine block

[Bob Gaines]

Yes as others have stated the 68 GT500 would typically have the vin or partial stamped on the head. A misunderstanding apparently because I know Vern and he is informed and what is correct in this case.

[Coralsnake]

Well there were other possibilities, like an intake stamping, but it is atypical

[Mikelj5S230]

Nothing like a slime gold 'vert......

[QuickSilverShelby]

Thanks for the clarification.  Maybe I read it wrong and subsequently posted it here wrong so please don't take my "statement" as fact.  I was just looking for clarification and now I have it.  I figured it would be better to ask any questions, regarding the auction, here as opposed to asking those questions in Verns auction.  Thanks everyone.

QSS