Up until recently I had only read about a 2 piece fiberglass nose. I had never seen one, not even in photos. (Keep in mind I've been collecting photos of each and every '67 I find for several years now, about 850 so far.) I started looking for more info about it (roughly when they started and stopped), but can't find anything. They must be extremely rare. I don't recall the topic ever being discussed on the old forum. I'm hoping someone might know a bit more to share.
Recently, Randy (owner of #0031) sent me a photo of a red GT500 with this unusual 2 piece nose split right down the center of the grille. Neither of us know the ID number, but it is an early build with a slanted grille. I don't believe it's a double digit car since it has plates for the light mounting. It appears at the Mustang Roundup in Washington every few years. Maybe someone knows the car and can share the ID number.
Tonight I came across a second car with the 2 piece nose. It is another GT500 this time painted in Dark Moss Green. Unfortunately there is no ID on this one either. It is stated to be an early car built in 1966 (SJ or LAX is not noted, but I strongly suspect that is a SJ date). It also has a slanted grille and plates for the light mounting. It was restored by Dragon Wheel Restorations and is pictured on their website.
Anyone else know of another car with this 2 piece nose. Please let us know.
EDIT #1: List of cars known or believed to have a 2 piece fiberglass nose.
#0344 GT500 SJ build 12/22/66 -SA completion 1/24/67 Slanted grille (photos) added 5/19/21
#0345 GT500 SJ build 12/27/66 -SA completion 1/06/67 Slanted grille (photos/registry) added 10/28/18
#0376 GT500 SJ build 12/30/66 -SA completion 1/26/67 Slanted grille (photos)
#0403 GT350 SJ build 12/30/66 -SA completion 1/27/67 Slanted grille (owner note "KPHartley" on SAAC forum) added 5/15/18, update 12/5/18
#0413 GT500 SJ build 1/5/67 -SA completion 1/30/67 Slanted grille (photos OwenK)
#0458 GT500 SJ build 1/7/67 -SA completion 1/30/67 Slanted grille (photos RandyS)
#0467 GT500 SJ build 1/6/67 -SA completion 1/27/67 Vertical grille (Shelby forums owner note / photo JS)
#0482 GT500 SJ build 1/9/67 -SA completion 1/27/67 Slanted grille (SAAC forum note "Wedgeman") updated 11/28/18
#0486 GT500 SJ build 1/9/67 -SA completion 1/31/67 Vertical grille (owner notes plates not bands)
#0500 GT500 SJ build 1/10/67 -SA completion 1/31/67 Stanted grille (registry footnotes)
#0504 GT500 SJ build 1/9/67 -SA completion 1/30/67 Stanted grille (owner reported)
#0515 GT350 SJ build 1/4/67 -SA completion 1/31/67 Slanted grille (owner photos)
#0772 GT500 SJ build 1/23/67 -SA completion 2/27/67 Vertical grille (Survivor -SAAC 38 - Chairman's Award)
#0803 GT500 SJ build 1/24/67 -SA completion 3/3/67 Vertical grille (Survivor -SAAC 32 - Chairman's Award)
#0817 GT500 SJ build 1/26/67 -SA completion 2/16/67 Vertical grille? (registry photo)
#0906 GT500 SJ build 1/30/67 -SA completion 3/1/67 Vertical grille (photos from internet) added 11/26/18
EDIT #2; CORRECTIONS made to dates for #0500 5/21/2021
EDIT #3; added #0344
EDIT #4; added #0504 and #0817
#413 is currently undergoing a restoration and has the two piece nose. Nightmist Blue GT500.
Thanks Owen,
#0413 has a 1/30/67 SA completion date. It appears to have a slanted grille (probably a 2 piece with the plates for the light mounting also)
That's a good start.
You may have posted 2 photos of #0413 on the old forum (painted white with a bold single black stripe over the hood scoop, roof and trunk.)
The 2 piece nose is hidden by a bent bumper in that photo.
The Red 67 GT500 with the 2 piece nose is #458 owned by Mike Vercheak in Renton WA..member of WASAAC... 8)
THANKS Wedgeman,
Now we have two cars both with SA completion dates of 1/30/67 with the 2 piece nose.
;D
I have some images of a two-piece nose, which is thought to not be a factory version as per Bob's comment below. Don't remember where I got them was either for sale on e-pay or the old "crashed" forum.
It's in primer and outside on the ground against a wall with a clamp holding the two side together. Rich is that one of the one you have??
It's unique, other than the two-piece construction, the fender light openings have deep pockets with a back that I think the head light bucket got screwed to with a hole for the wires and socket to fit through.
JD
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418005437.jpeg)
Quote from: JD on April 18, 2018, 12:49:41 AM
I have some images of a two-piece nose, don't remember where I got them was either for sale on e-pay or the old "crashed" forum.
It's in primer and outside on the ground against a wall with a clamp holding the two side together. Rich is that one of the one you have??
It's unique, other than the two-piece construction, the fender light openings have deep pockets with a back that I think the head light bucket got screwed to with a hole for the wires and socket to fit through.
JD
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418005437.jpeg)
JD I don't think that was a factory nose in the picture. I think the nose with the headlight bucket made into it was a early repro part.
The two piece nose was constructed of the fiberglass weave mat just like the one piece nose that was used before and after . It wasn't until much later the the chop gun texture fiberglass material was used .
I imagine they tried the two piece nose was developed to save installation time?
Abandoned cause I didn't save time?
Kelly, are you restoring local to you ?
GT500 #772 is a survivor with a 2 piece nose.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 18, 2018, 01:36:59 AM
JD I don't think that was a factory nose in the picture. I think the nose with the headlight bucket made into it was a early repro part.
Bob, OK - thanks for the education, I'll adjust the reply above.
JD,
The photo you posted does NOT appear to be from either of the two cars I've noted with a 2 piece nose. Here's the link to the Dark Moss Green car restored in England at Dragon Wheels Restoration. They have a second DMG car restoration, so this link we direct you to the 2 piece nose car only. They show pictures of over a dozen Shelby restorations on their site. I'll only say that these photos should not be followed for reference.
http://dragonwheelsrestorations.co.uk/gallery_car.asp?cID=64&car=1967%5FShelby%5FGT500%5FDark%5FMoss%5FGreen
Quote from: George Schalk on April 18, 2018, 03:48:25 AM
GT500 #772 is a survivor with a 2 piece nose.
THANKS George...for noting #0772 as a survivor and with a 2 piece nose.
I noticed it was at SAAC 38 in Fontana winning a Chairman's Award, well done. The only photo of it I found of it is not very clear. It looks like it might have a straight/vertical grille. Is that correct?
I'll start a list in the first post here noting the SJ and LAX date for each car found with a 2 piece nose.
Maybe we can narrow down the time frame when they were produced and how they compare.
Quote from: 2112 on April 18, 2018, 02:11:47 AM
I imagine they tried the two piece nose was developed to save installation time?
Abandoned cause I didn't save time?
Kelly, are you restoring local to you ?
I believe it had a lot to do with how hard it was to fit the first early one piece fiberglass nose. They were being taken out of the molds early before totally curing causing them to slightly warp and making it hard to bend them into position for installation is my understanding . I suppose there was pressure on the mfg to turn out as many nose units as possible which lead to the situation. The two piece was supposed to help with that situation. They didn't look as good is my guess but there could have been other issues. They are interesting blip in the production time line but not as nice as the one piece IMO. The problem was discovered and solved by better fiberglass production practices at the very least because they went back to the one piece style nose for the rest of production.
Quote from: Richstang on April 18, 2018, 10:53:16 AM
JD,
The photo you posted does NOT appear to be from either of the two cars I've noted with a 2 piece nose. Here's the link to the Dark Moss Green car restored in England at Dragon Wheels Restoration. They have a second DMG car restoration, so this link we direct you to the 2 piece nose car only. They show pictures of over a dozen Shelby restorations on their site. I'll only say that these photos should not be followed for reference.
http://dragonwheelsrestorations.co.uk/gallery_car.asp?cID=64&car=1967%5FShelby%5FGT500%5FDark%5FMoss%5FGreen
Rich & Bob, see attached image from the car Rich posted a link to that is in England. It seems to match the one I posted in an earlier reply that Bob says is thought to be a repro of some sort. I'm sure they made more than one of them - here's another or are there variations of 2-piece noses? (just a thought for discussion) Another image added...
Also, odd that the right (passenger side) inboard grille light mounting plate has two holes for the wiring and connector (maybe I can sell him 5 instead of the typical 4?).
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418121644.jpeg)
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418122746.jpeg)
JD,
Thanks for posting these comparison photos. I agree, both of these appear to have matching details.
Same type of fiberglass, deep headlight buckets, and 3 outer bosses in the same positions for the outer trim ring to screw into.
(If you sell them 5 grommets instead of 4 you'll have a broken set)
:P
Mike with #0458 is a SAAC forum member here. He sent me a PM a few weeks ago about the light mounting plates and offered to send photos.
Hopefully he will see this thread, chime in, and share some photos. It would be nice to see if his 2 piece fiberglass nose is the same as well.
Richstang, I know Mike well, and have seen his car up close several times....it almost appears to be a survivor...you can ask him about that...
#413's two piece nose looks like the other two on here that are thought to be early aftermarket parts. Maybe all the factory two piece noses were early aftermarket parts! ;) In a way, they were..........
Also, #413 escaped the Shelby production facility with it's door tag in place.
THANKS again Owen,
Is there anyway you can get us some photos of that nose...(front and backside) especially if its still off the car?
Quote from: JD on April 18, 2018, 12:21:09 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 18, 2018, 10:53:16 AM
JD,
The photo you posted does NOT appear to be from either of the two cars I've noted with a 2 piece nose. Here's the link to the Dark Moss Green car restored in England at Dragon Wheels Restoration. They have a second DMG car restoration, so this link we direct you to the 2 piece nose car only. They show pictures of over a dozen Shelby restorations on their site. I'll only say that these photos should not be followed for reference.
http://dragonwheelsrestorations.co.uk/gallery_car.asp?cID=64&car=1967%5FShelby%5FGT500%5FDark%5FMoss%5FGreen
Rich & Bob, see attached image from the car Rich posted a link to that is in England. It seems to match the one I posted in an earlier reply that Bob says is thought to be a repro of some sort. I'm sure they made more than one of them - here's another or are there variations of 2-piece noses? (just a thought for discussion) Another image added...
Also, odd that the right (passenger side) inboard grille light mounting plate has two holes for the wiring and connector (maybe I can sell him 5 instead of the typical 4?).
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418121644.jpeg)
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/29-180418122746.jpeg)
It could be given the correct two piece style joint. I don't think a aftermarket piece would copy a obscure detail like that. I have seen known repro one piece nose that had the strange primitive looking molded in bucket. Without seeing the joint in the previous picture I thought that is what I was looking at besides it already had repair work done to it. I haven't seen enough of the two piece to say for certain how many different 2 piece versions there was.
Sorry no pictures of the back side or stripped down. 67 #803 seen at a national a few years back
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/10/6-180418155826.jpeg)
THANKS Jeff,
#0803 is another GT500, but as we see here it has a vertical/straight grille. It won the chairman's award at SAAC 32 in UT.
I've added it to the list in post #1. The time frame in production is starting to spread out wider than I expected.
Quote from: Richstang on April 18, 2018, 04:53:02 PM
THANKS Jeff,
#0803 is another GT500, but as we see here it has a vertical/straight grille. It won the chairman's award at SAAC 32 in UT.
I've added it to the list in post #1. The time frame in production is starting to spread out wider than I expected.
Don't know that it "spreads out" the time line since the cars were not completed in sequential (at Shelby) order. Don't fall into that trap without taking into consideration other events and facts
There have been mention of some cars being started but not completed which could lead to false positive assumptions. Just treading lightly ;)
Understood...That's why I'm noting both the SJ and SA completion dates for each of the cars to give us a look at the complete window of time.
I realize that some cars may have been basically finished, but not listed at complete due to a part shortage or other special reasons.
Photo's of #0413 courtesy of "owenkelly"
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180418182242-9521811.jpeg)
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180418182242-9621292.jpeg)
and the back of #0413
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180418182242-963986.jpeg)
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180418182242-9642070.jpeg)
Quote from: Richstang on April 17, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
........................................
Anyone else know of another car with this 2 piece nose. Please let us know.
EDIT: List of cars known or believed to have a 2 piece fiberglass nose.
...................
#0467 GT500 SJ completion 1/27/67 -SA completion 1/27/67 (Shelby forums note from owner)
Picture confirmation that #467 had the nose at least when these pictures were taken
Picture grabbed from the internet add for the car
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/10/6-180418184936.jpeg)
Great Pics !!
Richstang,
Mike Vercheak here. I PM you asking for you email address so I can send you some pictures. My car is altogether and has been since I bought it so I do not have pictures like some of the other guys posted with their cars all apart. My car does have deep slanted inboards. I will also try to resize some pictures and post them here.
thanks,
Mike owner of 458
Also, odd that the right (passenger side) inboard grille light mounting plate has two holes for the wiring and connector (maybe I can sell him 5 instead of the typical 4?).
486 has the 2 piece and it also has the extra hole in the mounting plate, which I always thought was a repo.. or maybe it is
Quote from: 67gt500 on April 18, 2018, 08:17:19 PM
Also, odd that the right (passenger side) inboard grille light mounting plate has two holes for the wiring and connector (maybe I can sell him 5 instead of the typical 4?).
486 has the 2 piece and it also has the extra hole in the mounting plate, which I always thought was a repo.. or maybe it is
67gt500,
Thanks for letting us know #0486 also has a 2 pc nose.
How does your 2 pc nose compare to the photos posted so far?
Just added #0376 to the list in the first post. So far only GT500's are noted with the 2 pc nose.
This is the earliest car so far SJ 12/30/66 - SA 1/26/67.
Strange that they are all GT500's so far.....
0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350. Been off the road for many years but almost finished.
Quote from: s_eagle on April 23, 2018, 04:35:54 PM
0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350. Been off the road for many years but almost finished.
s_eagle,
Thanks for telling us the GT350 #0515 has a 2 piece nose. (PM to follow)
I couldn't believe the 2 pc nose was limited to only GT500's. There's no reason other than if it was at a point in production when they were trying to get more GT500's out the door. I suspect there are a whole lot more cars out there with the 2 piece nose.
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: s_eagle on April 23, 2018, 04:35:54 PM
0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350. Been off the road for many years but almost finished.
s_eagle,
Thanks for telling us the GT350 #0515 has a 2 piece nose. (PM to follow)
I couldn't believe the 2 pc nose was limited to only GT500's. There's no reason other than if it was at a point in production when they were trying to get more GT500's out the door. I suspect there are a whole lot more cars out there with the 2 piece nose.
I agree a lot more cars then you have listed but not many relative to the rest of production.
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 09:47:29 PM
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.
Wait, wouldn't SA have continued with the 2 piece versions, or are we saying that was just a stop cock measure? Wouldn't it have been fixed when they modified the nose molds? That certainly didn't fix the fitment issues. Case in point, every 67 Shelby I saw with their hoods open at SAAC 42 had a bent passenger's side hood pin bracket. Wouldn't that have been 'fixed' when the nose molds was tweaked, or is that a completely separate issue?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 23, 2018, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 09:47:29 PM
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.
I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).
"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).
Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."
If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.
Quote from: BGlover67 on April 24, 2018, 10:13:54 AM
Wait, wouldn't SA have continued with the 2 piece versions, or are we saying that was just a stop cock measure? Wouldn't it have been fixed when they modified the nose molds? That certainly didn't fix the fitment issues. Case in point, every 67 Shelby I saw with their hoods open at SAAC 42 had a bent passenger's side hood pin bracket. Wouldn't that have been 'fixed' when the nose molds was tweaked, or is that a completely separate issue?
We are talking about a
working theory. I think Bob said it nicely when he mentioned the 2 piece nose was not a nice as the one piece nose. That might have been the SA viewpoint as well, especially considering the short term use of the 2 piece nose. One of the reasons I like Brian Styles
working theory is not only from his point in the VanAiken letter, but also because we know the 68 Shelby production nose made by AO Smith was done in several pieces. Yes, the hood pin bracket might be a separate issue.
Quote from: 2112 on April 24, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.
I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: 2112 on April 24, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.
I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?
Shut lines not matching (not even close) the fender shut lines and the leading edges not matching the hood. Those two don't bug me nearly as much as the passenger side lazy eye tho.
Quote from: 2112 on April 24, 2018, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: 2112 on April 24, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.
I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?
Shut lines not matching (not even close) the fender shut lines and the leading edges not matching the hood. Those two don't bug me nearly as much as the passenger side lazy eye tho.
Thanks for your list. I'll be looking for that lazy eye from now on.
Since Michael (2112) brought my attention to the strabismus (lazy eye) headlight issue, I see it on every original Shelby I look at. Only really reworked (overly restored) cars seem not to have it.
Umm,
Brian and I have OCD.
It is in our nature.
Of course, having all these flaws is assemblyline correct. ;D
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 23, 2018, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 09:47:29 PM
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.
I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).
"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).
Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."
For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to. Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 24, 2018, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 23, 2018, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 09:47:29 PM
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.
I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).
"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).
Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."
For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to. Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in.
Please accept my apology Bob.
Brian had given me permission to share his working theory with the forum in his first email to me on this topic. Your forum question was a good one. I thought if I posted his reply, others who have been following along would not be left in the dark. I didn't realize there was a different context in your question to him in the private email. I do not normally share anything private with an open forum unless given permission. Thanks for your understanding in this particular situation. I do hope he is able to share something concrete and complete as well, such as those Ionia work orders if he has them.
It's difficult with Brian being banned from our forum (for reasons we don't need to get into here). Through his extensive research he has gathered more info from "behind the scenes" on the '67's than most of us have ever seen. I am thankful for his website and all he shares on it. He asked me to share a second email on another thread I started, but I'm not with him 100% on the reply. So, we're waiting for more feedback from another person. I don't enjoy being a middle man, but poking into these '67 details is putting me in that spot. As always, I appreciate all your help too.
Rich
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 24, 2018, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 24, 2018, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 23, 2018, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2018, 09:47:29 PM
Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.
In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production) My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" -- the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:
http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp
3. Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)
The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."
Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.
I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.
I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).
"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).
Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."
For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to. Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in.
Please accept my apology Bob.
Brian had given me permission to share his working theory with the forum in his first email to me on this topic. Your forum question was a good one. I thought if I posted his reply, others who have been following along would not be left in the dark. I didn't realize there was a different context in your question to him in the private email. I do not normally share anything private with an open forum unless given permission. Thanks for your understanding in this particular situation. I do hope he is able to share something concrete and complete as well, such as those Ionia work orders if he has them.
It's difficult with Brian being banned from our forum (for reasons we don't need to get into here). Through his extensive research he has gathered more info from "behind the scenes" on the '67's than most of us have ever seen. I am thankful for his website and all he shares on it. He asked me to share a second email on another thread I started, but I'm not with him 100% on the reply. So, we're waiting for more feedback from another person. I don't enjoy being a middle man, but poking into these '67 details is putting me in that spot. As always, I appreciate all your help too.
Rich
No need for apology but accepted all the same. We are good. You are just too efficient for your own good. ;D I was getting ready to share the info when I saw your post. Like I said before under the circumstances I am perfectly fine.
GT350 #403 HAS A TWO PIECE FRONT END
Quote from: KPHARTLEY on May 15, 2018, 11:07:43 AM
GT350 #403 HAS A TWO PIECE FRONT END
Excellent, another GT350 for the list.
Thank you KP (and welcome to the forum)
PM sent
updated list on first post;
Thought I would post this picture from my files - labeled L Automobile Magazine Jan 68. Shows 2 piece nose w/slanted grill. Can't tell if 350 or 500.
Kurt.
Quote from: 67350#1242 on October 28, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
Thought I would post this picture from my files - labeled L Automobile Magazine Jan 68. Shows 2 piece nose w/slanted grill. Can't tell if 350 or 500.
Kurt.
NICE CATCH!
I've seen the photo before, but never noticed the 2 piece nose.
Just spoke with Bob Hamilton..67 GT500 Nightmist Blue. # 482... 2 piece nose..... 8)
Quote from: Wedgeman on November 17, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
Just spoke with Bob Hamilton..67 GT500 Nightmist Blue. # 482... 2 piece nose..... 8)
Possible to post any photos??
Car is in storage, I will ask Bob
Quote from: Wedgeman on November 18, 2018, 02:28:12 PM
Car is in storage, I will ask Bob
Thanks Wedgeman,
#0482 added to the list. It would be great to see any photos of this car.
Do you know if it has a vertical or slanted inboard grille?
I believe he mentioned to me the slanted grill. I will try to get some pics....
I have '67 GT500 #906 and it has the 2 piece nose. SA build date of 1/30/1967.
Thanks for sharing!
Quote from: nwfire on November 26, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
I have '67 GT500 #906 and it has the 2 piece nose. SA build date of 1/30/1967.
That's great...Thank you! I'll add it to the list.
The 1/30/67 date is listed as the San Jose build date in the registry with the SA completion dated as 3/1/67
Quote from: Richstang on November 26, 2018, 09:14:01 PM
Quote from: nwfire on November 26, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
I have '67 GT500 #906 and it has the 2 piece nose. SA build date of 1/30/1967.
That's great...Thank you! I'll add it to the list.
The 1/30/67 date is listed as the San Jose build date in the registry with the SA completion dated as 3/1/67
Interesting, #875 was built on 2/1/67 in SJ and completed at SAI on 4/6/67 and it has a single piece nose.
Quote from: 2112 on November 26, 2018, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: Richstang on November 26, 2018, 09:14:01 PM
Quote from: nwfire on November 26, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
I have '67 GT500 #906 and it has the 2 piece nose. SA build date of 1/30/1967.
That's great...Thank you! I'll add it to the list.
The 1/30/67 date is listed as the San Jose build date in the registry with the SA completion dated as 3/1/67
Completion date is a clue. You don't know at what station of conversion the car was at that kept it from being finished. In this case it may have been something else that caused a delay which by the time the issue was resolved SA was not using the two piece nose anymore.
Interesting, #875 was built on 2/1/67 in SJ and completed at SAI on 4/6/67 and it has a single piece nose.
Maybe a clue that the issue was resolved in March '67?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 26, 2018, 09:31:04 PM
Quote from: 2112 on November 26, 2018, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: Richstang on November 26, 2018, 09:14:01 PM
Quote from: nwfire on November 26, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
I have '67 GT500 #906 and it has the 2 piece nose. SA build date of 1/30/1967.
That's great...Thank you! I'll add it to the list.
The 1/30/67 date is listed as the San Jose build date in the registry with the SA completion dated as 3/1/67
Interesting, #875 was built on 2/1/67 in SJ and completed at SAI on 4/6/67 and it has a single piece nose.
Completion date is a clue. You don't know at what station of conversion the car was at that kept it from being finished. In this case it may have been something else that caused a delay which by the time the issue was resolved SA was not using the two piece nose anymore.
With the last two cars added the date range has widened much further than I expected. We're seeing about 9 1/2 weeks from SJ Builds to SA completions.
Roughly 649 Shelby's were built at SJ from 12/27/66 - 1/31/67
Shelby completed roughly 486 cars from 1/6/67 - 3/3/67
Certainly the number of cars with the 2pc nose will be much smaller than either of the above numbers, but how much smaller is the question.
As Bob mentioned, it's possible the March built cars were sitting for a bit before completion.
The majority of cars listed were completed in January so I'd
speculate were looking at about 250-350 cars with the 2 pc nose.
67 GT 500 #482 2 piece nose & slanted grill pics........... 8)
"Wedgeman" thanks to you and the owner. These are so rarely seen.
Any images of the lower opening available?
(Do you know what the 2 lower cross beam wire holders that are clipped to the top right side of the grille are being used for?)
JD..here is the lower grill area...( those 2 clips on top of the grill are just lying there, do not belong there ).. ;D
Again - Thank you both!
Yes, very much appreciated.
Anyone else notice the bottom of the 2 piece nose (base of lower grille area) seems to have a concave surface, not convex like the 1 piece nose cars?
I've noticed this on several of these 2 piece cars.
Attention all '67 owners with a 2 piece fiberglass nose.
Please contact me via PM. I will try to reach out to those of you that I have on our list (on page 1 of this thread).
THANKS in advance for any replies.
Just added #0344 to the list in the first post.
I was told some owners reworked or replaced the fiberglass to hide the visible 2-piece split.
That's a shame, as it is a very unique feature for these cars. (easy for me to say now in 2021, versus the 70's or 80's)
If anyone has a close up (particularity of the backside and maybe the bottom grille section, please post photos here.
We have a forum member asking to see the factory correct assembly. He wants to lose the 'blended in' issue on his car.
Thanks to everyone who has responded! There are still a few pending folks we hope to talk to soon.
Keep the PM's coming!
I have a 67 Shelby GT500 #00348 and I have missing the front nose and hood.
How can I indifi if it was a 1piece or 2piece nose and if the hood was with the steel frame or not ?
Quote from: Kyle on July 25, 2021, 05:50:07 AM
I have a 67 Shelby GT500 #00348 and I have missing the front nose and hood.
How can I indifi if it was a 1piece or 2piece nose and if the hood was with the steel frame or not ?
Your car 0348 most likely had a two piece nose based on the reported cars with that style built in the same time period.Car 0348 would have had a hood and trunklid with steel innerstructure based on how early your car is relative to the many hundreds of cars later in production when the all fiberglass versions transitioned into production.
Ok thanks Bob , yes my the trunklid is with steel frame.
Here is some photos of my grill that I think it is the original to the car.
The grill with the eyebrows is very hard to find and is a sign of a early car. It most likely is to your car. The backside of the center headlight /hood latch bracket is interesting with additional cut openings . That was most likely done by a past owner.
Yes me to the grill most likely is correct to the car.
Do you think that the backside of the bracket latch was all with the cut openings from Shelby factory or was from past owners? If the front nose was 2 piece this grill is correct for it or it needs to be 1 piece grill please?
Quote from: Kyle on July 26, 2021, 04:07:22 PM
Yes me to the grill most likely is correct to the car.
Do you think that the backside of the bracket latch was all with the cut openings from Shelby factory or was from past owners? If the front nose was 2 piece this grill is correct for it or it needs to be 1 piece grill please?
The extra holes would have been done by past owners. There would typically be no reason Shelby American would need to do that. Most likely a 2 piece grill was used on your car based on when it was built.You have the hardest to source section.
Ok so the extra holes was made by past owners. If my car was with 2 piece grill and 2 piece nose it has a Shelby GT500 emblem please ? Were can I find 2 piece nose and a hood with steel frame ?
Quote from: Kyle on July 27, 2021, 08:16:15 AM
Ok so the extra holes was made by past owners. If my car was with 2 piece grill and 2 piece nose it has a Shelby GT500 emblem please ? Were can I find 2 piece nose and a hood with steel frame ?
Unfortunately both are very rare parts. For example ,I stay tuned in and hear about many Shelby parts of all years given my interests and see or hear about maybe one steel frame hood coming up for sale every year or so. The two piece nose I have only seen one or two damaged ones for sale and heard about another for sale in the 40 plus years that I have been working with Shelby parts. I hope that I am wrong but the odds of you finding them in any condition for sale will be high.You would be better off time and money wise to find a high end restoration shop that specializes in Shelby's and commission them to make the parts like Shelby did. Add a Mustang steel inner structure to a original hood not repro . Use a Cobra fiberglass brand nose or original as a basis to make the overlapping two piece design nose. This is just my observations and opinions based on experiences,others may have different ones.
Is Cobra Fiberglass brand what Branda sells?
Quote from: 2112 on July 27, 2021, 11:46:09 AM
Is Cobra Fiberglass brand what Branda sells?
Branda has a long history selling that brand. It is one of several mfg brands that they sell each at a different price point.
Bob,sorry I'm not sure if it was a 2 piece nose or 1 piece. The tail light panel, trunk lid and all scoops from the backside is all fiberglass cloth pattern If I make a 2 piece nose it would not be with a correct backside pattern ?
Quote from: Kyle on July 27, 2021, 01:45:21 PM
Bob,sorry I'm not sure if it was a 2 piece nose or 1 piece. The tail light panel, trunk lid and all scoops from the backside is all fiberglass cloth pattern If I make a 2 piece nose it would not be with a correct backside pattern ?
If you want to make it easy on yourself put a one piece nose on . As I stated before your car most likely came with the 2 piece nose based on how cars were built around the same time frame as yours. You for sure can mimic the back side texture. In the now many decades since enthusiasts have started to care about such details this is not the first time this situation has come up . ;) The correct looking backside pattern is the easiest part of the build process relatively speaking . That is part of the trick of replicating details that specialized enthusiasts and restorers learn who have done it before.
Hi Kyle,
I can understand your wanting to learn more about your car...and the questions you posted, but going forward please start a new thread for the off topic details specific to your car, so we can focus here on the 2-piece nose subject.
As we discussed previously (in emails) it is VERY likely your car came with the slanted 2 piece grille.
That follows the photos you posted.
There is no data (no paperwork that is known to exist) that will state if your car, or any '67 Shelby's, had the 1 or 2-piece nose.
As Bob similarly stated, the Shelby American completion date noted in the last registry for your car does appear to suggest it did.
We can see that by comparing with other cars completed around the same time in late January 1967.
Anyone reading this, that is aware of a 2-piece nose car, that is not listed in the first post in this thread, is urged to share that info.
It will help everyone interested in them.
Thanks
My GT500 #817 has a two piece nose riveted together at center of grille area. Build date 1/26/67
Quote from: kkupec02 on August 17, 2021, 03:40:20 PM
My GT500 #817 has a two piece nose riveted together at center of grille area. Build date 1/26/67
Welcome KKupec02
You second post and your digging in...terrific
Thanks for the update on your car having a 2-piece nose! As you can see in the first post, #00817 fits at the tail end of the SJ build dates and Shelby VIN's in my list of known cars that have the feature. SJ did not install the fiberglass, so the SAI completion date (2/16/67) is very important for all the Shelby specific details.
PM to follow
1967 Shelby GT 500 Moss Green #504 has the 2 piece nose and slanted Grill. SA completion date January 30th.
Question though, the upright bracket looks like it was two piece, and welded, is this correct. Based on comparisons it seems it is not correct.
Terry thank you for the details on your car. I will follow up with a PM regarding the 2pc nose.
You may know, the hood latch support (upright bracket) was not a Shelby part and was on the base unit supplied by Ford.
Shelby did add the grille light mounting plates. I believe they were welded on.
The top section of the latch does appear to be added on to the vertical section..if that is what you are referring to.
Quote from: Terry Curry on October 13, 2021, 04:46:57 PM
1967 Shelby GT 500 Moss Green #504 has the 2 piece nose and slanted Grill. SA completion date January 30th.
Question though, the upright bracket looks like it was two piece, and welded, is this correct. Based on comparisons it seems it is not correct.
Sorry I forgot to add your image with notes... Terry, you are correct, the weld on the hood support bracket is not typical. (Not sure why this would have been "spliced", you might compare to a unmodified one and see if the overall heights are the same)
The plastic clip (red arrow) is a Shelby added item, it was to hold the wire to the inboard headlights to the support.
Also, the headlight bucket is a Unmodified one, Shelby made this hole larger so the headlight connector could fit through the hole and then they added a rubber grommet to close the enlarged hole.
See image below for a comparison of un-modified and modified and the grommet, hope this helps
JD
Images added: early inboard light car with the plates for mounting the headlight buckets and the hood latch support bracket (Ford) modified by Shelby. Note there is a weld where (some?) of the nose support/license plate bracket got welded to the hood support bracket, this seems to be where the cut and re-weld is on the bracket in question. Could be it was cut during removal or accident repair at some point and then spot welded to re-attach??
Also note the enlarged holes in the head light buckets and the supply wire with the connector routed through the enlarged holes. This is why the rubber grommets were needed/made.
Thank you for the feedback. Now that makes more sense on why the plugs were modified by the PO of the car. What size is the enlarged hole? I also attached a picture of the back side of the inboard light bracket. Again thank you for the help/info.
Thanks for posting the backside, the enlarged holes are 1.5" (1-1/2") if I remember correctly. The fender light buckets get them too - each car got 4 grommets.
(I sell the grommets if you/anyone needs them, click on the link in the signature at the bottom of my post)
You can fudge on the fender buckets having the big holes given you can't see them once mounted but the high beam lights (regardless of inboard /outboard grill) are highly visible . It is one of the things I have learned to look for when judging in concours because the buckets are commonly replaced during restoration and the large hole and corresponding large grommet are overlooked when replacing.
My "unrestored" Nightmist Blue GT500 #817 built 1/26/67 has a two piece nose
Quote from: kkupec02 on October 14, 2021, 09:52:02 PM
My "unrestored" Nightmist Blue GT500 #817 built 1/26/67 has a two piece nose
Thank you for sharing that info.
I need to update the list on page 1 (updated)
PM sent.
As requested, here a few picture of the 2 piece nose for car #504. I removed the nose off the car 20 years ago. Note the hole on the backside of the outside lights, is a 2" hole in the fiberglass.
Terry
More pictures #504 - 2 piece nose
Final set of pictures of two piece nose for #504.
Thank you for the pictures. They are very helpful. I thought I would add so that there is no confusion that the large diameter rivets holding the two pieces together top and bottom would most likely not be painted body color given the nose was installed on the car after being painted.
Thank you for sharing the photos.
Yes, thanks for posting!!
My pleasure. Trying to get the car back together correctly and I thank everybody for their help. I purchased a step-drill to open the holes to 1.5" on the inboard lights. Though the holes in the fiberglass for the outside/driving lights are 2" I will not touch them (Make them smaller to fit a 1.5" grommet as Bob Gaines said you can't see them)
Again thank you for your help.
Terry
Based on the photos you posted, the grommets are already there in the fender light buckets - they are in/attached to the metal buckets not the fiberglass openings.
This is typically the same on the grille lights, the grommet is "in" the bucket not the metal backing/mounting plate.
Here is a fender light mounting plate with the bucket and the grommet in the enlarged hole. (The grille lights are similar, but the plates are different.) With the two-piece nose the buckets appear to be attached to the back of the fiberglass headlight pocket (3 mounting tabs) but the grommet is still in the bucket.
Thanks again for posting these ;-)
Odd, the different ways S/A assembled these pre number 1000 cars as assembly ramped up.