SAAC Forum

Craig Jackson has just revealed he has Little Red...pictures to follow

I thought it was already found and restored by the Volo auto museum guys, is that the same car?

Quote from: Greg on August 17, 2018, 08:43:41 PM
I thought it was already found and restored by the Volo auto museum guys, is that not the same car?

Volo had the 67 Convertible. Little red is the coupe.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 17, 2018, 08:46:38 PM

Quote from: Greg on August 17, 2018, 08:43:41 PM
I thought it was already found and restored by the Volo auto museum guys, is that not the same car?

Volo had the 67 Convertible. Little red is the coupe.

Thanks Bob, I didn't know there was a coupe out there.

Little red and the Green hornet were for sale at BJ auction recently and were a no sale if memory serves me right. Craig probably has them tucked away in the VAULT. ;)

Quote from: 427heaven on August 17, 2018, 08:54:50 PM
Little red and the Green hornet were for sale at BJ auction recently and were a no sale if memory serves me right. Craig probably has them tucked away in the VAULT. ;)

Craig is having the Green Hornet restored as we speak.

Here is a link to pics for all:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cCpl5RvGfYxI55MLnTGNoMLaXxG81w

And to a website explaining all:

http://shelbyprototypecoupes.com

Little Red is a 1967 Shelby coupe that had asupercharged 428. Its been "missing" since 1968, until this evening

WOW!!  So cool!   I can't wait to hear more and see more photos!

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/businesswire/press_releases/Texas/2018/08/17/20180817005442 (https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/businesswire/press_releases/Texas/2018/08/17/20180817005442)

and

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/08/17/little-red-1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-found-after-50-years-could-be-worth-millions.html (http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/08/17/little-red-1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-found-after-50-years-could-be-worth-millions.html)

Brian keeps updating the pics at this link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cCpl5RvGfYxI55MLnTGNoMLaXxG81w

Thanks to Brian Styles for all the unveiling photos he shared with us.

The website Brian Glover posted doesn't share any useful info on where the cars been all these years.
Hopefully this will be shared with us soon along with some photos past and present.

In the Woodward presentation we see that screen slide of the car from years ago with a young boy standing in front of the right side of the car. It had the black vinyl top, the front fender, and hood on it at that point in time. It appears to be in drivable condition with a minor dent in the upper quarter panel.
Who was the this Texas mystery owner?
Where did he get the car? (Wyoming plate in trunk)
When did he get the car? (Wyoming plate dated 1975)
Who did he buy it from?
Are there other photos of it from when it was in this mystery owners possession, when it was in nicer condition?
Did the owner have a clue about what he had?
Come on...that's the meat of this story, not just the amazing discovery of Little Red on March 3rd.

What about the details of the car itself.
Were those aftermarket rims on it when it was purchased?
What engine did it have?
Does the engine it came with still exist?
Are the pieces in the trunk from a 67 or 68 nose? (Looks like a '68 nose to match the rest of the car)
Where are the fenders?
If they exist did they have any welded up emblem holes visible on the backside?
Was the a hood on site?
Are any of the '68 pieces with the car prototype pieces or are they production parts?

Giant picture reposted below

The Fox News story is pretty good at retracing the history

The car was updated to a 1968 Shelby coupe, sold used, two owners until Jason Billups tracked it to a Texas field

Can someone shrink that photo?

Simply AWESOME!!!

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:01:30 PM
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-170818215550.jpeg)

Does that say "EXP" in the fender stripe lettering?

Maybe that's at the version three point of its life.

Thanks Rich, thats when the first owner had the car...note the EXP 500 side stripes

The car was loaded with 1968 parts

Quote from: Richstang on August 17, 2018, 09:56:30 PM
Thanks to Brian Styles for all the unveiling photos he shared with us.

The website Brian Glover posted doesn't share any useful info on where the cars been all these years.
Hopefully this will be shared with us soon along with some photos past and present.

In the Woodward presentation we see that screen slide of the car from years ago with a young boy standing in front of the right side of the car. It had the black vinyl top, the front fender, and hood on it at that point in time. It appears to be in drivable condition with a minor dent in the upper quarter panel.
Who was the this Texas mystery owner?
Where did he get the car? (Wyoming plate in trunk)
When did he get the car? (Wyoming plate dated 1975)
Who did he buy it from?
Are there other photos of it from when it was in this mystery owners possession, when it was in nicer condition?
Did the owner have a clue about what he had?
Come on...that's the meat of this story, not just the amazing discovery of Little Red on March 3rd.

What about the details of the car itself.
Were those aftermarket rims on it when it was purchased?
What engine did it have?
Does the engine it came with still exist?
Are the pieces in the trunk from a 67 or 68 nose? (Looks like a '68 nose to match the rest of the car)
Where are the fenders?
If they exist did they have any welded up emblem holes visible on the backside?
Was the a hood on site?
Are any of the '68 pieces with the car prototype pieces or are they production parts?

It says EXP in the side stripes!!!
Come ON!!!
How could they not know they had something special?

Well they didnt know, second owner always wondered if it was real,  but didnt know he had a special car until Jackson and Billups told him

The fenders and engine were taken off by the second owner and later stolen from a storage area. Thats when he stored the car away in a remote Texas field. It sat outside for decades

In the fox story, the owner said he knew (suspected) it was Lil'Red for 25 years

The 1968 parts are all production parts. That indicates to me it was assembled after October 1968. There are soem factory production notes that support that.

I personally enjoy the 68 connection

I plan a story on Monday

Thanks for all this info Pete!!

Did you see those four holes in the floor board on each side.
Maybe a roll bar in the coupe at some point...Just like what was found on the convertible!
The July '67 Riverside photos don't show a roll bar (Version 2?).
Maybe that's from Version 1...full '67 dress, not the partial 68 dress in the vintage Riverside photos!

I didnt notice that detail. I think Craig Jackson was genius for displaying the car in the "as found" condition

floor holes

maybe only three. I need to look at the other side. Didn't save that one too.

I guess if you saw this car today and you werent really up to speed, you would be scratching your head.

I can understand why previous owners wouldnt know what they had....a strange brew of 67 and 68 parts on a coupe.

Cool. 8)
Looking through my files this pic described as LilRed_engine, pic by SA chief engineer Fred Goodell. Could be?
(http://www.ponysite.de/littlered_goodell.jpg)

I believe that is the engine photo, found by Paul Newitt

The car still has those red hoses on it today

Quote from: TransamEd on August 17, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Cool. 8)
Looking through my files this pic described as LilRed_engine, pic by SA chief engineer Fred Goodell. Could be?
(http://www.ponysite.de/littlered_goodell.jpg)

I period type single paxton couldn't build any substantial usable boost with the 428 displacement. Maybe with a very small pulley.

Pretty sure those wheels were on the car when it was sold by Courtesy Ford in Colorado...

It looks like the Paxton gauge panel is still in the car from the unveiling photos.

I saw some gauges under the dash. I have more photos, but I am not smart enough to shrink them on the ipad

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:35:24 PM
I saw some gauges under the dash. I have more photos, but I am not smart enough to shrink them on the ipad

I'll post them

Quote from: Richstang on August 17, 2018, 10:33:25 PM
It looks like the Paxton gauge panel is still in the car from the unveiling photos.

Although the panel looks like the one used with paxton cars the gauges are oil pressure and alternator instead of paxton fuel pressure and Boost.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 17, 2018, 10:50:11 PM

Quote from: Richstang on August 17, 2018, 10:33:25 PM
It looks like the Paxton gauge panel is still in the car from the unveiling photos.

Although the panel looks like the one used with paxton cars the gauges are oil pressure and alternator instead of paxton fuel pressure and Boost.

Thanks Bob!

Maybe the gauges were replaced in the panel when the Paxton was removed?

 What do you think about the discovery  Bob?

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:52:43 PM
What do you think about the discovery  Bob?

About as close to a miracle as you can get. I wish I was there to see it in person.

Its craziness for sure. The stories about the previous owner are very interesting.

I agree, very very significant discovery

Long day, more looks tomorrow...

Posted for Coralsnake...

Craig shows the original untouched serial numbers. The car is shown as found.

Engine bay has lots of details

Interesting base car.... not sure what I was expecting but interesting just the same. Wonder if it was new or used when Shelby got it. Marti report/Ford records would help with that.

Of course I'm just as focused on the base car - interesting that it has at least one unibody panel with the long list.

Sure there will be allot of what would be expected mixed with new finds and head scratchers

Great find - one more checked off the "list"

Sure this thread will grow and grow.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
Pretty sure those wheels were on the car when it was sold by Courtesy Ford in Colorado...

Hello Pete,

Craig stated that info for 0131 and "several other cars" was found that related to Courtesy Ford in Littleton, Colorado.  Can you please tell me if info for 0100 was included in what was found?

Thanks,
Eric

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 17, 2018, 11:13:09 PM
Interesting base car.... not sure what I was expecting but interesting just the same. Wonder if it was new or used when Shelby got it. Marti report/Ford records would help with that.

Of course I'm just as focused on the base car - interesting that it has at least one unibody panel with the long list.

Sure there will be allot of what would be expected mixed with new finds and head scratchers

Great find - one more checked off the "list"

Sure this thread will grow and grow.

I believe it was delivered to SA as a new car. It has it's own DSO number.
Built at San Jose 11/8/66 - SA completion 12/7/66

Mustang Monthly ran a video of tonight's announcement on their Facebook page.   If you have Facebook you can watch it here.  (I assume you have to log in)

https://www.facebook.com/mustangmonthlymag/videos/1146946088777689/UzpfSTIwODE3MTAxNTkwOTMxNzoxOTI0MzE3NTgwOTYxMzEw/?multi_permalinks=1924317580961310&notif_id=1534562957885023&notif_t=group_activity (https://www.facebook.com/mustangmonthlymag/videos/1146946088777689/UzpfSTIwODE3MTAxNTkwOTMxNzoxOTI0MzE3NTgwOTYxMzEw/?multi_permalinks=1924317580961310&notif_id=1534562957885023&notif_t=group_activity)

We have known of these about 5 years now, so now we love barn find- ahhh errr field find cars again? Finding a forlorn classic NEVER gets old! ;)

Quote from: Richstang on August 17, 2018, 11:28:58 PM
I believe it was delivered to SA as a new car. It has it's own DSO number.
Built at San Jose 11/8/66 - SA completion 12/7/66

Not sure what that means??

SA ordered one package version of each car on a single DSO from the start.
400F
410F
411F engineering #0100 fastback
411H engineering #0131 coupe
411C engineering #0139 convertible
201F
210F
211F
200F cars were first ordered in a 100 car DSO order.

Why would any of these be used cars with such a short time between the SJ build date and their SA completion dates?

Quote from: Richstang on August 18, 2018, 12:15:48 AM
Why would any of these be used cars with such a short time between the SJ build date and their SA completion dates?

First wasn't aware of the time span. The other option would have been a regular retail purchase from a local dealer inventory. But the why is easy - To obtain a car quicker. Have been many discussions of this in the past - if you don't ask then you don't find out ;)

Numbers shown in your post must be from a different number or ordering system than Ford's - the reason I didn't recognize them as DSO - Special orders

Being a fan of Lil Red I'm happy to see it is still around . Hope to get the chance someday to see it in person.

With regards to Courtesy Ford...it seems an unusually high number of engineering vehicles found their way to Colorado to be sold....I am not up to speed if #100 was there?

68#41
68#101

And now 67 #131 are all known to have been sent there. Its kind of remarkable no one ever checked to see if #131 was sold, they just assumed it was crushed. The info was in the Ford records...

Courtesy must have had someone who agreed to take these cars as used and resell them. Someone should start reviewing their advertising....there could be a nugget there

Very cool. I'm very happy that it has survived. I can't wait to see it done and in person. I'm glad I don't have to decide of a time period to which it will be restored. Too much angst involved in that for me.

I kind of like the '67 look.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/08/17/little-red-1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-found-after-50-years-could-be-worth-millions.html

A miracle for sure - never thought I'd see the day that Little Red was found.

Awesome doesn't even describe it....

- Phillip

A picture from one of the posted links shows there is a factory '68 AM/FM radio installed!  How cool is that!  It could probably use one of my cosmetic/mechanical "spruce ups" at the very least.  This car is such an interesting find.  Who knows how many different ways this vehicle was outfitted in its day.

Craig R.

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 18, 2018, 12:26:58 AM

Quote from: Richstang on August 18, 2018, 12:15:48 AM
Why would any of these be used cars with such a short time between the SJ build date and their SA completion dates?

First wasn't aware of the time span. The other option would have been a regular retail purchase from a local dealer inventory. But the why is easy - To obtain a car quicker. Have been many discussions of this in the past - if you don't ask then you don't find out ;)

Numbers shown in your post must be from a different number or ordering system than Ford's - the reason I didn't recognize them as DSO - Special orders

Thanks Jeff,
I could see how your "easy" explanation could happen for time savings, but...
Are you aware of Shelby American ever using a used car for development, besides 67 #0463 and 67 #0139 for '68 styling use?

In the case of the first three '67 GT500 engineering prototypes, these were the first 428 engines installed in a (base unit) Mustang, at San Jose.
(I think this was confirmed by Dave Mathews per Shelby American records). I've heard the old way of thinking was they were 390 cars and SA swapped out engines. I could see how that would fit in your used car scenario to get the ball rolling, since it was already November '66.

The numbers in my post are only the packages orders. No DSO numbers or VIN units numbers. Here's a more detailed list of each of them if it helps.
For the most part we see about a month between the SJ build to the SA completion dates.

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180818101142.jpeg)

Quote from: SHELB66 on August 18, 2018, 09:53:57 AM
A picture from one of the posted links shows there is a factory '68 AM/FM radio installed!  How cool is that!  It could probably use one of my cosmetic/mechanical "spruce ups" at the very least.  This car is such an interesting find.  Who knows how many different ways this vehicle was outfitted in its day.

Craig R.

My thought is it was in three versions.

1) Completely in '67 dress when completed in early Dec '66; Slanted inboard grille, Magstars, red painted taillight panel, and a roll bar
2) Partial '67/'68 dress from Riverside July '67 vintage photos; Outboard straight grille, chrome grille surround trim, 10-spokes, silver tail panel, no roll bar
3) Complete '68 dress as found in current conditon.

Are those wheels motor wheel (fly's) on it in found condition.?

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
Pretty sure those wheels were on the car when it was sold by Courtesy Ford in Colorado...

The one wheel pic looks like 'MOTOR WHEELS' and 'SPYDER' markings in the center.  Until I enlarged the image, thought it was 'Motorcraft'.  ;D

Quote from: caspian65 on August 18, 2018, 10:35:39 AM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 17, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
Pretty sure those wheels were on the car when it was sold by Courtesy Ford in Colorado...

The one wheel pic looks like 'MOTOR WHEELS' and 'SPYDER' markings in the center.  Until I enlarged the image, thought it was 'Motorcraft'.  ;D

I had a set of those wheels on a car in the early '70's. Yes, Motor Wheel Spyder sound familiar

Popular with drag racers like Ed Schartman.

I tend to think of them as '69 & '70 vintage.

Wonder if they were introduced in '68?

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/134-180818114126.jpeg)

- Phillip

I only see the "EXP" letters in this side view. I don't see the "GT500" in front of it, just what appears to be the continued inner stripe.


(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/204-180818114744.jpeg)

Got a good look at the car today at Woodward. The car is very cool....

Handwritten chalk markings left on the aprons say "SHELBY"

Craig started a website:

www.shelbyprototypecoupes.com

Any idea to what configuration it will be restored?  I'm seeing pics with a '67 front end and also with a '68??  Early pics show 10 spokes also?

Cool find, looking forward to following the restoration progress.

I dont think thats been determined, but after talking with Mr Jackson, I would say he wants to like the most iconic, representative version.

He is very open to suggestions and actively searching for stories, photos and history on the car.

I know of another Courtesy Ford card that had those wheels, it was a 1968 KR.

Quote from: caspian65 on August 18, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Any idea to what configuration it will be restored?  I'm seeing pics with a '67 front end and also with a '68??  Early pics show 10 spokes also?

Cool find, looking forward to following the restoration progress.

One of the old photographer's tricks was to have one set of wheels on one side of the car vs. the other?

I suppose Lil' Red was really always an 'engineering car'? It's really a dilemma (I went to HS with him, Pete Dilemma), like the '67 'vert. No matter how you dress it, you will take criticism?

There are more pics of Lil' Red right? More freezes in time to pic from.

It was always an engineering car.

It was also purposely built for Shelby.

When the engineers were done it went to Courtesy Ford in Colorado.

I have seen a few other (original owner) pictures, but they do not reveal any details

There a few period press photos

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 18, 2018, 02:59:29 PM
I know of another Courtesy Ford card that had those wheels, it was a 1968 KR.

If I'm understanding correctly, Little Red was assigned a Shelby VIN while the Green Hornet was not?

Also regarding the Spyder wheels and their association with drag racing - Brian Styles mentioned to me how Little Red's passenger quarter has a nice wrinkle that's been there since the oldest known time pictures. That wrinkle and it's location is a common side-effect of hard-launching these cars.

- Phillip

Quote from: propayne on August 18, 2018, 08:57:26 PM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 18, 2018, 02:59:29 PM
I know of another Courtesy Ford card that had those wheels, it was a 1968 KR.

If I'm understanding correctly, Little Red was assigned a Shelby VIN while the Green Hornet was not?

Also regarding the Spyder wheels and their association with drag racing - Brian Styles mentioned to me how Little Red's passenger quarter has a nice wrinkle that's been there since the oldest known time pictures. That wrinkle and it's location is a common side-effect of hard-launching these cars.

+1 .saw many buckled quarters in the late 60s early 70s on Fords at the strip

- Phillip

Thats correct, Little Red was assigned a number. It appears to me no tag was ever mounted to the apron.

The Green Hornet was not assigned a Shelby number

He found the car through a VIN search? Amazing! I don't know why Kevin Marti doesn't do the same thing. He has all the VIN #s to every significant Ford product from 67 on. And whoever from the SAAC who told the last owner that little red was crushed instead of following up on that lead must be kicking himself in the A@& right now! I know I would be!

Quote from: 68stangcjfb on August 18, 2018, 11:10:17 PM
He found the car through a VIN search? Amazing! I don't know why Kevin Marti doesn't do the same thing. He has all the VIN #s to every significant Ford product from 67 on. And whoever from the SAAC who told the last owner that little red was crushed instead of following up on that lead must be kicking himself in the A@& right now! I know I would be!

The crushed story has been around for at least 30 years .At least that was the first time I heard tell of what happened to it. It may have started with a Ford employee and not someone at SAAC.

There a lot of reasons that story might have been perpetuated.

I dont want to know the details of how the car was tracked, but it is my personal understanding you need special privledges or be willing to pay someone for the service.

I am sure if it were easy or cheap, a lot more people would do it.

It's funny really. it seems all these they got crushed stories seem to be code for sneaking them out the back door!  makes you wonder if these cars were discovered 30 years ago, somebody would be in very hot water from a legal standpoint. But 50 years on? Who cares? And you're right it does cost money to do all these searches. but the upside can be pretty staggering.

Quote from: 68stangcjfb on August 18, 2018, 11:24:43 PM
It's funny really. it seems all these they got crushed stories seem to be code for sneaking them out the back door!  makes you wonder if these cars were discovered 30 years ago, somebody would be in very hot water from a legal standpoint. But 50 years on? Who cares? And you're right it does cost money to do all these searches. but the upside can be pretty staggering.

It isn't uncommon for the era. I knew someone who worked for Gruman Aircraft on Long Island. The Aeroquip he had was amazing. You had to see the size of his lunch "pail". I wonder what else would fit in there. The jet engines were too big.

Don't ask, don't tell, is nothing new. Just the application has refocused?

  I'm glad it has been found.  Let's remember, in Paul Hewitt's 68 California Special registry Lil'Red was in Dearborn being used as a styling exercise for the future California Special 68 Mustangs.  This is why the photos are showing a whole lot of 68 parts.  The tail lights, the deck lid configuration, the steering wheel.

  Ford stories about crushing:  This about sums it up about these stories.  Lil" Red isn't the first we've read about this.  Prototypes being crushed.  Maybe somebody spread the rumour about various cars.  IE the 67 GT 500 C'vert, Lil 'Red, how about those Thouroughbred cars, the NASCAR 70 Torino shovelnose.  Somebody at the corporate Fomoco sales was up to something I think.

...or people who didnt know better, made it up, because they couldnt find the cars?

...or if you want to go to the darkside, maybe they spread the story to stop people from looking for the cars, while they continued to search?

There are a lot of possible scenarios

Are we sure thats Little Red that was made into a Cal Spec?

I think the Green Hornet was the Cal Spec car.

Here are the handwritten notes we believe are from Fred Goodell, Chief Engineer

The "new" version of the coupe would be the Green Hornet, built in Dearborn. Its unknown if the Green Hornet ever got a 427 transplant


(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-090318130355.jpeg)

It's all kind of a fascinating situation where at some point, some person who has the opportunity does something that, if not out right illegal it certainly borders on unethical. I'm sure their motivation wasn't to preserve history, but to put a few extra bucks in their pockets.

But the result is that something of huge historical significance gets saved.

Not unlike concerts that were illegally recorded (bootlegged) and then 50 years later the bands actively seek them out to be included in official and exhaustive retrospective releases.

- Phillip

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 19, 2018, 08:14:29 AM
Are we sure thats Little Red?

:o ...oh no!

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 19, 2018, 08:14:29 AM
Are we sure thats Little Red?

I think the Green Hornet was the Cal Spec car.

Here are the handwritten notes we believe are from Fred Goodell, Chief Engineer

The "new" version of the coupe would be the Green Hornet, built in Dearborn. Its unknown if the Green Hornet ever got a 427 transplant


(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-090318130355.jpeg)

The Full letter can be found on Brian's "1967 Shelby Convertible" website. Noted there as circa July '67.

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/ionia-move-jobs-yet-to-be-completed-in-california.asp


Shelby Doug, probably knows this but, I believe Pete means "Are we sure Little Red was the '68 Cal Spec car and not the Green Hornet?
I read the letter the same way...Little Red was kept by CS and the Green Hornet was built and sent off to fulfill the Cal Spec car needs.

CS and his bean counter were likely the ones behind saving Little Red and the other Engineering cars from the crusher. I would think he wanted to either keep a few for himself or sell everything possible to get a few more dollars out of the venture before it all shifted over to Ford in Michigan.   see reply #84 below

Its likely Ford was involved, because the cars seem to have went through dealerships.

Im still trying to determine if they were sold as "used" or " demonstrators" or something else?

QuoteShelby Doug, probably knows this but, I believe Pete means "Are we sure Little Red was the '68 Cal Spec car and not the Green Hornet

Correct. I have ammended my post to clarify

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 19, 2018, 10:15:33 AM
Its likely Ford was involved, because the cars seem to have went through dealerships.

Im still trying to determine if they were sold as "used" or " demonstrators" or something else?

Forgive me if this was covered and I missed it, but I'm curious if the "it was crushed" theory emanated from official written documentation from Ford?

- Phillip

This makes me wonder now, again, about the Cobra(s) that were sent to Ford for "evaluation" then reported as "crushed"?

I think "crushed" is just a "Detroit" code word for something else.

I have never seen anything in writing.

A former AO Smith employee told me he watched a portable crusher crush some cars at the plant to include a Cobra.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 19, 2018, 10:15:33 AM
Its likely Ford was involved, because the cars seem to have went through dealerships.

Im still trying to determine if they were sold as "used" or " demonstrators" or something else?

Great point that I overlooked! I'll strike that sentence.

At the Woodward Cruise in Mustang Alley. Not really in cruising condition.

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/187-190818131350.jpeg)

And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

It doesn't look like there is any holes drilled in the apron where the Shelby tag would have been. Does #100 and #139 have Shelby tags?  Also, did they stamp the Shelby vin in the right shock tower apron of all of production cars or did some of the early cars not get Shelby vin stamped?

Quote from: Sixx7shelby on August 19, 2018, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

It doesn't look like there is any holes drilled in the apron where the Shelby tag would have been. Does #100 and #139 have Shelby tags?  Also, did they stamp the Shelby vin in the right shock tower apron of all of production cars or did some of the early cars not get Shelby vin stamped?

Yes #100 and 139 had the Shelby tags and the apron stamped Shelby VIN . It was typical for production cars to get the apron stamped too.

Quote from: Sixx7shelby on August 19, 2018, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

It doesn't look like there is any holes drilled in the apron where the Shelby tag would have been. Does #100 and #139 have Shelby tags?  Also, did they stamp the Shelby vin in the right shock tower apron of all of production cars or did some of the early cars not get Shelby vin stamped?

Hello,

Please see the attached photos of 0100.  The first photo is an enlargement of part of a photo that was taken by Motor Trend of 0100's engine compartment on 12/12/66. The second photo is an enlargement of part of a photo that was taken by Sports Car Graphic of 0100's engine compartment on 12/9/66.


Thanks,
Eric

Thanks Eric and Bob for clarifying that. Am I just not seeing holes where tag once was?

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

I'm seeing 7R01C,  don't look like any "S" i've ever seen ???

Quote from: Sixx7shelby on August 19, 2018, 03:10:12 PM
Thanks Eric and Bob for clarifying that. Am I just not seeing holes where tag once was?

Apparently Little red didn't get a Shelby vin tag because there doesn't appear to be any holes for the rivets.

Quote from: 69mach351w on August 19, 2018, 03:30:34 PM

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?
(http://www.ponysite.de/7R01S1388__.jpg)
Did somebody take a better pic?

I'm seeing 7R01C,  don't look like any "S" i've ever seen ???

That's just a bad picture...
The previous link in this thread to Brian Styles unveiling photos shows it is an "S". We can see it is heavily stamped compared to the rest of the letters.

Quote from: Richstang on August 19, 2018, 04:31:09 PM
That's just a bad picture...
The previous link in this thread to Brian Styles unveiling photos shows it is an "S". We can see it is heavily stamped compared to the rest of the letters.

+1 Its just a bad angle. One reason you always take multiples

The engine code stamping matches other indicators/details you can see in other pictures

 Is it just me or is the rad support top rubber strip screwed on?  ;)

Chris

There are no holes for a Shelby VIN tag present

It is held on with small rivets and washers.

Interestingly, there appear to be two side rubber strips to seal the radiator to the opening. They have the same rivets.

I will be posting some more pictures soon

Quote from: Chris Thauberger on August 19, 2018, 05:10:06 PM
Is it just me or is the rad support top rubber strip screwed on?  ;)

The seal also has witness marks/holes for the staples so it may have been removed and reattached with they modified the radiator opening and attached that non- Ford seal

Quote from: TransamEd on August 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
And the VIN is 7R01S138822?

Did somebody take a better pic?

Quote from: 69mach351w on August 19, 2018, 03:30:34 PM
I'm seeing 7R01C,  don't look like any "S" i've ever seen ???

The VIN is plainly visible in this link previously supplied in this thread, but if it is hard to see here is an enlargement.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cCpl5RvGfYxI55MLnTGNoMLaXxG81w

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/193-190818175154.png)

Only 187 miles from Weatherford to Pittsburg, TX.

This is amazing!  Now only Morrison's and Connie's left to find!

Simply as someone previously mentioned,  truly a miracle. Be still my heart. First it was bullit number two in Mejico. Now its little red. I am not a betting man, but I will wager $1 that soon (next couple of years) we will have the long lost Morrisons Shelby with us...

Quote from: CorvetteMike on August 19, 2018, 08:21:05 PM
This is amazing!  Now only Morrison's and Connie's left to find!

Connie who? Kreski?

Morrison's remains still a real possibility.

Quote from: shelbydoug on August 20, 2018, 08:13:32 AM

Quote from: CorvetteMike on August 19, 2018, 08:21:05 PM
This is amazing!  Now only Morrison's and Connie's left to find!

Connie who? Kreski?

Morrison's remains still a real possibility.

The beautiful playmate and her snake

Like Jimmy's and his car I truly dont think will be coming back. But you just truly dont know. What was the qoute on the 6 million dollar man. We can rebuild him. We have the technology.  We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.

Quote from: FL SAAC TONY on August 20, 2018, 08:24:19 AM

Quote from: shelbydoug on August 20, 2018, 08:13:32 AM

Quote from: CorvetteMike on August 19, 2018, 08:21:05 PM
This is amazing!  Now only Morrison's and Connie's left to find!

Connie who? Kreski?

Morrison's remains still a real possibility.

Steve Austin was over priced. I wouldn't pay that.

The beautiful playmate and her snake

Like Jimmy's, his car I truly dont think will be coming back. But you just truly dont know. What was the qoute on the 6 million dollar man. We can rebuild him. We have the technology.  We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.

Quote from: 68stangcjfb on August 18, 2018, 11:24:43 PM
It's funny really. it seems all these they got crushed stories seem to be code for sneaking them out the back door!  makes you wonder if these cars were discovered 30 years ago, somebody would be in very hot water from a legal standpoint. But 50 years on? Who cares? And you're right it does cost money to do all these searches. but the upside can be pretty staggering.

I had a family member work in Ford Light Truck Engineering back in late 70's,
while working on the Ford Dearborn test track there were Pantera's lined up in the infield
with "Parts Only" spray painted on the hoods, destined for the crusher.

My theory is as long as Ford has control that destiny is likely, once they are in someone elses custody there is more chance to escape the crusher, IMHO.

When I wasd a Ford parts manger we had our towing service  (also police impound lot) bring in a Lincoln that turned up during a traffic stop,
the VIN didn't come up, after contacting Ford they found a line worker drove it off the line one day and had been driving it for some time.
That one DID go to the crusher after Ford Legal got done.

regards,
jim p

😂 I guess that guy felt he was entitled to a bonus or something! Or maybe he thought it was his own car and he forgot and just drove it home!😂

Anyone have specific info about where the car was found.  I live about 15 miles from Weatherford and I can't help daydreaming about it.

Quote from: aj on August 20, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Anyone have specific info about where the car was found.  I live about 15 miles from Weatherford and I can't help daydreaming about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/08/17/little-red-1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-found-after-50-years-could-be-worth-millions.html

Quote from: aj on August 20, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Anyone have specific info about where the car was found.  I live about 15 miles from Weatherford and I can't help daydreaming about it.

The exact location and maybe even some names are likely no need to know.

Quote from: 68blk500c on August 20, 2018, 04:01:28 PM
The exact location and maybe even some names are likely no need to know.

+1 Likely none of our business

Is this a Period Photo of Little Red?  If so, it has 67 Shelby Deck Lid Emblems on the Roof Sail panels.

Yes, the picture was taken during the introduction of the 1967 models.

Remember engineering cars stayed at the factory for longer periods of time than regular production cars.

The car was later "updated" to 1968 specifications...with all new fiberglass, interior and emblems.

Quote from: tesgt350 on August 20, 2018, 04:27:36 PM
Is this a Period Photo of Little Red?  If so, it has 67 Shelby Deck Lid Emblems on the Roof Sail panels.

This is the way that I remember it. I don't recall seeing it dressed as a '68?

What a story !!  8) Guess ya never know whats just laying around in fields.

I hope he decides to restore it as a '67. It makes the most sense as The Green Hornet is a '68.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 20, 2018, 04:31:52 PM
Yes, the picture was taken during the introduction of the 1967 models.

Remember engineering cars stayed at the factory for longer periods of time than regular production cars.

The car was later "updated" to 1968 specifications...with all new fiberglass, interior and emblems.

Hey Pete, don't you mean the July '67 introduction of the '68 models?

I understand only 2 sets of '68 prototype molds were made. One set was used on the '67 Convertible GT500 #0139 and the other set used on the '67 Fastback GT500 #0463 (the A/C car that tested along the #0544 SuperSnake). That was the reason that Little Red was only updated with look-a-like pieces to resemble a '68 while still having all the base '67 Shelby parts on it. I don't think there's ever been any late '67 or early '68 pictures of Little Red in full '68 fiberglass...is there? 

Quote from: 68stangcjfb on August 20, 2018, 05:02:10 PM
I hope he decides to restore it as a '67. It makes the most sense as The Green Hornet is a '68.

+1

Quote from: JD on August 20, 2018, 08:19:58 PM

Quote from: 68stangcjfb on August 20, 2018, 05:02:10 PM
I hope he decides to restore it as a '67. It makes the most sense as The Green Hornet is a '68.

+1

+2

Okay, here we go...the Coralsnake update.

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP (http://www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP)

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 20, 2018, 08:34:20 PM
Okay, here we go...the Coralsnake update.

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP (http://www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP)

To me, there is cool, then there is something distantly beyond it. In this case, one is red and the other green.

Nice job Pete.

Why thank you Doug. That means a lot to me coming from a knowledgable person like yourself.

I shall try catch the typos in coming days.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 20, 2018, 08:55:06 PM
Why thank you Doug. That means a lot to me coming from a knowledgable person like yourself.

I shall try catch the typos in coming days.

I normally woodn't notice them nyself?

When you first started you compliment, I thought your were referring to me. LOL

Then you had to add the red and green part....

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 20, 2018, 09:00:33 PM
When you first started you compliment, I thought you were referring to me. LOL

Then you had to add the red and green part....

Well if the shoe fits, color fits, wear it? You'd look good in red.

Thanks to Pete's "Coralsnake" update we've been told and shown that the vinyl top was not a Ford factory applied vinyl top, but rather a sprayed on application to look like one. http://www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP
You know where this is going!!!

Was LITTLE RED originally built without a vinyl top?

If it's not factory applied it very well could have been delivered to LAX fully painted in red with no vinyl top. It was completed by San Jose November 8th, 1966. Does the Marti report list the vinyl top as an option? We've already read that it had Magstars as first built, NOT 10-spokes. I assume that is written as "Deluxe wheels" on the SA purchase order.

The SA completion date is noted as December 7th 1966. That would mean it had a slanted grille with inboards when completed, NOT the vertical outboard light grille shown at the July 7th, 1966 Riverside LLTC invitation, 7 months later. That's a lot of time to think about how to make it appear different for the '68 model unveiling.

Something else to think about is the Shelby De Mexico model. All those early '67 Coupe photos show them with painted roofs, no vinyl tops. Perhaps that follows Little Red's lead without a vinyl top.

I'm sure this will be controversial too many, but you have to admit it is a real strong possibility!

Rich

Quote from: shelbydoug on August 20, 2018, 08:52:14 PM



To me, there is cool, then there is something distantly beyond it. In this case, one is red and the other green.

It is cool, and that is the question you get asked at New Mexican food restaurants around here: 
http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-new-mexico-chiles-20171126-story.html

Quote from: Richstang on August 21, 2018, 11:55:42 AM
Was LITTLE RED originally built without a vinyl top?

If it's not factory applied it very well could have been delivered to LAX fully painted in red with no vinyl top. It was completed by San Jose November 8th, 1966. Does the Marti report list the vinyl top as an option? We've already read that it had Magstars as first built, NOT 10-spokes. I assume that is written as "Deluxe wheels" on the SA purchase order.

But it really makes no difference how the car was delivered to SA but how the car was built by Shelby and designers could have (which apparently they did) wanted a vinyl top and they got one the easy way. These were somewhat popular for a short period of time and know a number of people that went that route here in Calif including one of the cars my dad built

Of course this type of cars often go through a number of configurations changing this or that - one of the challenges of restoring them and having to choose a single point in time, with supporting documentation, as the end goal for that restoration

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 21, 2018, 02:11:54 PM

Quote from: Richstang on August 21, 2018, 11:55:42 AM
Was LITTLE RED originally built without a vinyl top?

If it's not factory applied it very well could have been delivered to LAX fully painted in red with no vinyl top. It was completed by San Jose November 8th, 1966. Does the Marti report list the vinyl top as an option? We've already read that it had Magstars as first built, NOT 10-spokes. I assume that is written as "Deluxe wheels" on the SA purchase order.

But it really makes no difference how the car was delivered to SA but how the car was built by Shelby and designers could have (which apparently they did) wanted a vinyl top and they got one the easy way. These were somewhat popular for a short period of time and know a number of people that went that route here in Calif including one of the cars my dad built

Of course this type of cars often go through a number of configurations changing this or that - one of the challenges of restoring them and having to choose a single point in time, with supporting documentation, as the end goal for that restoration

Certainly the most important detail is how SA built the car initially.

My speculation wonders if it was built in full tilt '67 appearance back in Dec '66 without the vinyl top. If it was ordered by SA that way in the paperwork, on the DSO, that would be a good indicator of the intended direction of the initial build.

7 months later, the July '67 version (only version seen to date in vintage pictures) might be when the vinyl top was added to help with the visual impact of the '68 styling introduction.

You guys know how hard its been not talking about this since March? I have had to call Pete several times and threaten to have Fuller shoot a missile at him if he didn't hush. Glad its finally out so I can relax, well at least relax about trying to keep it quiet. Now we have to start the work part. The response has been great so far. Over 400K likes on the Facebook page and we've already received 5 new photos. The media and PR team from Barrett Jackson has done an amazing job. I will share with Pete and he can post as soon as I get the ok from Scottsdale. Going to be a fun journey bringing these 2 special coupes back to life.   

I swear I only told one guy, so we know where the leak came from ....

;)

I have corrected most of the typos, if anyone sees anything please hollar back

www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP

Sincerely,

Saac Forum / Little Red Official Liason Officer

Quote from: billups67 on August 21, 2018, 04:55:18 PM
You guys know how hard its been not talking about this since March? I have had to call Pete several times and threaten to have Fuller shoot a missile at him if he didn't hush. Glad its finally out so I can relax, well at least relax about trying to keep it quiet. Now we have to start the work part. The response has been great so far. Over 400K likes on the Facebook page and we've already received 5 new photos. The media and PR team from Barrett Jackson has done an amazing job. I will share with Pete and he can post as soon as I get the ok from Scottsdale. Going to be a fun journey bringing these 2 special coupes back to life.   

Awesome!!  I was thinking the same thing.  I just met you met you a couple weeks ago at SAAC 43 and I thought that was probably difficult to keep to yourself through that and many other times I am sure.  Such a huge achievement to find that car, it would be difficult not to share with friends and other like minded folks that are into these cars.   I am looking forward to seeing the progress and any new information found about the car.  Congratulations!

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 21, 2018, 04:59:58 PM
I swear I only told one guy, so we know where the leak came from ....

;)

I have corrected most of the typos, if anyone sees anything please hollar back

www.thecoralsnake.com/EXP

Sincerely,

Saac Forum / Little Red Official Liason Officer

HEY, hey, hey, I never told a sole. (Besides, I thought you might have been messing with me after my forum 2.0 reintroduction post on Little Red back in the late winter.) I even tried to throw the wolves of the track when they starting to figure it out. That post about #0176 was one diversion. Autoweek seemed to be the real last minute spoiler. They posted those field pictures the night before.

 Okay maybe I told two people...  :D

Pete maybe more like 3 or 4 or maybe 5 or 6.....Doesn't matter now. What matters is Little Red is no longer lost. Great day for the car world. Glad I was a part of it.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 21, 2018, 06:22:32 PM
Okay maybe I told two people...  :D

That's a good thing.

Quote
Pete maybe more like 3 or 4 or maybe 5 or 6.....Doesn't matter now. What matters is Little Red is no longer lost. Great day for the car world. Glad I was a part of it.

Not true. Just two, one squealed

Quote from: billups67 on August 21, 2018, 04:55:18 PM
I have had to call Pete several times and threaten to have Fuller shoot a missile at him if he didn't hush.

:)

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 21, 2018, 08:32:50 PM

Quote
Pete maybe more like 3 or 4 or maybe 5 or 6.....Doesn't matter now. What matters is Little Red is no longer lost. Great day for the car world. Glad I was a part of it.

Not true. Just two, one squealed

No guilt here.

Quote from: 68blk500c on August 21, 2018, 09:49:23 PM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 21, 2018, 08:32:50 PM

Quote
Pete maybe more like 3 or 4 or maybe 5 or 6.....Doesn't matter now. What matters is Little Red is no longer lost. Great day for the car world. Glad I was a part of it.

Not true. Just two, one squealed

No guilt here.

Well, it depends on who you squeal to? If Einstein was walking around telling people, "E=mc2", would it matter?  Plus tell your 'shrink'. I found Little Red, they are more likely to think that it was a stripper you saw once in a nudie bar.

How long has Craig had the Green Hornet? Was that car's location always known?

Quote from: billups67 on August 21, 2018, 04:55:18 PM
You guys know how hard its been not talking about this since March? I have had to call Pete several times and threaten to have Fuller shoot a missile at him if he didn't hush. Glad its finally out so I can relax, well at least relax about trying to keep it quiet. Now we have to start the work part. The response has been great so far. Over 400K likes on the Facebook page and we've already received 5 new photos. The media and PR team from Barrett Jackson has done an amazing job. I will share with Pete and he can post as soon as I get the ok from Scottsdale. Going to be a fun journey bringing these 2 special coupes back to life.   

For those not on Facebook, please continue sharing photos/updates on here or the Little Red website.
Definitely looking forward to following the restoration and to hopefully seeing it in person once done.
Will Craig have these two coupes at shows/events after restoration?

Thanks!
Brent

Interesting that the wheels on little red are the same as the first 1970 boss 429 lawman & its trailer when it got crushed while unloading ship & stayed over in vietnam. Also the 1969  boss 429 silver jade (that was painted by mistake & stayed at KK plant for a year until the KK plant shut down) also went to Courtesy motors littleton co. & stayed in denver area until we found it & i have another shelby that came from there as well.

I know thats the other end of the portal. 101 and 41 both factory EFI cars came through Colorado

Could somebody post a link to the Little Red Facebook page? I searched but couldn't find it. Just brought up a bunch of articles about the car itself.

Quote from: owenkelley on August 23, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
Could somebody post a link to the Little Red Facebook page? I searched but couldn't find it. Just brought up a bunch of articles about the car itself.

https://www.facebook.com/ShelbyPrototypeCoupes/ (https://www.facebook.com/ShelbyPrototypeCoupes/)

There are a couple pictures on the FB page that are not vintage pictures

  Speaking for many of the early 67's (sub #200)  I like to see the car restored in the Late November/Early December configuration.  Meaning slanted grill, GT 500 on the fenders, Dual quad 428 etc.  Next would be the L.A. auto show configuration with the Paxton on the 428.  Either way, my name isn't on the title so it is going to get done the way the new owner wants it done.
  Couple of things:  OK, it has been 50+ years.  The rear seats could have gotten changed but they are not "connolly leather custom upholstery".  Can't tell in the photos about the "Moulton carpeting".  The car never had a roll bar, but those 4 holes in the floor must be from traction bars.  It the tail light panel, seems they left the 67 cutouts in and fitted the 68 tail light panel over it.  And, according to Paul Hewitt, there was a 68 Console installed (Aug 1967) so that is why the 67 under the dash gauges are not there.

I respect what Paul Newitt has research, but I suspect the 1968 console was installed later.

Where are the LA Auto Show pictures? I will give a $100 if someone comes up with them.

I am also not so sure they didnt try a roll bar. There appear to be holes in the headliner.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 23, 2018, 12:14:07 PM
I respect what Paul Newitt has research, but I suspect the 1968 console was installed later.

Where are the LA Auto Show pictures? I will give a $100 if someone comes up with them.

I am also not so sure they didnt try a roll bar. There appear to be holes in the headliner.

Pete,
There are some issues with the notes from Paul's research. (I'm certainly grateful for all of those efforts)
The Riverside press review has been noted as July 7, 1967, not in August.

LA Auto Show pictures as the most elusive of all the major shows. We can find pictures from Detroit, Chicago, and NY, but almost nothing from LA.
Even a glimpse of the car in the background would be an amazing find and helpful.

The request for LA Auto Show (Pan Pacific) pictures should be noted on the "ShelbyPrototypeCoupes" website and on their Facebook page!
I believe the dates are from Oct 27 – Nov 6 in 1966.   

Quote from: Richstang on August 23, 2018, 12:38:15 PM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 23, 2018, 12:14:07 PM
I respect what Paul Newitt has research, but I suspect the 1968 console was installed later.

Where are the LA Auto Show pictures? I will give a $100 if someone comes up with them.

I am also not so sure they didnt try a roll bar. There appear to be holes in the headliner.

Pete,
There are some issues with the notes from Paul's research. (I'm certainly grateful for all of those efforts)
The Riverside press review has been noted as July 7, 1967, not in August.

LA Auto Show pictures as the most elusive of all the major shows. We can find pictures from Detroit, Chicago, and NY, but almost nothing from LA.
Even a glimpse of the car in the background would be an amazing find and helpful.

The request for LA Auto Show (Pan Pacific) pictures should be noted on the "ShelbyPrototypeCoupes" website and on their Facebook page!
I believe the dates are from Oct 27 – Nov 6 in 1966.

Hello Rich,

I am late to this game and confused about something.  Little Red could not be at the LA Auto Show during the dates you listed.  The car was not built at Ford until November 8, 1966.  Did you mean to say 1967?  Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Eric

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on August 23, 2018, 12:55:50 PM

Quote from: Richstang on August 23, 2018, 12:38:15 PM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 23, 2018, 12:14:07 PM
I respect what Paul Newitt has research, but I suspect the 1968 console was installed later.

Where are the LA Auto Show pictures? I will give a $100 if someone comes up with them.

I am also not so sure they didnt try a roll bar. There appear to be holes in the headliner.

Pete,
There are some issues with the notes from Paul's research. (I'm certainly grateful for all of those efforts)
The Riverside press review has been noted as July 7, 1967, not in August.

LA Auto Show pictures as the most elusive of all the major shows. We can find pictures from Detroit, Chicago, and NY, but almost nothing from LA.
Even a glimpse of the car in the background would be an amazing find and helpful.

The request for LA Auto Show (Pan Pacific) pictures should be noted on the "ShelbyPrototypeCoupes" website and on their Facebook page!
I believe the dates are from Oct 27 – Nov 6 in 1966.

Hello Rich,

I am late to this game and confused about something.  Little Red could not be at the LA Auto Show during the dates you listed.  The car was not built at Ford until November 8, 1966.  Did you mean to say 1967?  Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Eric

Hi Eric,

You're not confused, you're observant!

Little Red is noted as completed by SA on December 7th, 1966. If the LA Auto Show was in Nov '66 LA it couldn't have been there. The Paul Newitt article in the registry states it was shown on Jan 3rd 1967 at the LA auto show. I've read there was a sporting event that Little Red also made an appearance at. Maybe its the January date noted or I my Nov date info is wrong.

Quote from: Richstang on August 23, 2018, 01:39:27 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on August 23, 2018, 12:55:50 PM

Quote from: Richstang on August 23, 2018, 12:38:15 PM

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 23, 2018, 12:14:07 PM
I respect what Paul Newitt has research, but I suspect the 1968 console was installed later.

Where are the LA Auto Show pictures? I will give a $100 if someone comes up with them.

I am also not so sure they didnt try a roll bar. There appear to be holes in the headliner.

Pete,
There are some issues with the notes from Paul's research. (I'm certainly grateful for all of those efforts)
The Riverside press review has been noted as July 7, 1967, not in August.

LA Auto Show pictures as the most elusive of all the major shows. We can find pictures from Detroit, Chicago, and NY, but almost nothing from LA.
Even a glimpse of the car in the background would be an amazing find and helpful.

The request for LA Auto Show (Pan Pacific) pictures should be noted on the "ShelbyPrototypeCoupes" website and on their Facebook page!
I believe the dates are from Oct 27 – Nov 6 in 1966.

Hello Rich,

I am late to this game and confused about something.  Little Red could not be at the LA Auto Show during the dates you listed.  The car was not built at Ford until November 8, 1966.  Did you mean to say 1967?  Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Eric

Hi Eric,

You're not confused, you're observant!

Little Red is noted as completed by SA on December 7th, 1966. If the LA Auto Show was in Nov '66 LA it couldn't have been there. The Paul Newitt article in the registry states it was shown on Jan 3rd 1967 at the LA auto show. I've read there was a sporting event that Little Red also made an appearance at. Maybe its the January date noted or I my Nov date info is wrong.

It seems my dates are correct for the LA Auto Show starting in October '66. Here's a link to a photo of the '67 Mustang convertible on display Oct 29, 1966.
https://calisphere.org/item/adea7e3dad577fb395f587dc060b8153/

Also I don't believe we will find any MLB or NFL games in Jan 1966. Maybe NBA or another sport.

Quote from: roddster on August 23, 2018, 11:54:16 AM
  Speaking for many of the early 67's (sub #200)  I like to see the car restored in the Late November/Early December configuration.  Meaning slanted grill, GT 500 on the fenders, Dual quad 428 etc.  Next would be the L.A. auto show configuration with the Paxton on the 428.  Either way, my name isn't on the title so it is going to get done the way the new owner wants it done.
  Couple of things:  OK, it has been 50+ years.  The rear seats could have gotten changed but they are not "connolly leather custom upholstery".  Can't tell in the photos about the "Moulton carpeting".  The car never had a roll bar, but those 4 holes in the floor must be from traction bars.  It the tail light panel, seems they left the 67 cutouts in and fitted the 68 tail light panel over it.  And, according to Paul Hewitt, there was a 68 Console installed (Aug 1967) so that is why the 67 under the dash gauges are not there.

I don't know what the holes are for however I high confidence that they are not for traction bars. Traction bras would not be attached to a thin sheet metal floor pan . The thin metal would rip the first time it launched anything approaching hard. That is why traction bars are typically attached to frame rails.

Maybe it was a sponsored event like a gymkhana?

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-230818183508.jpeg)

Comparison of Little Red emblem (left) to OEM dash emblem (1968 Shelby) right

The car's existing dash emblem should be studied closely to validate originality, simply because of the resemblance to some generations of reproductions. 

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 23, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
Maybe it was a sponsored event like a gymkhana?

I checked Kranky's various list on the different Cobra raced events and nothing appeared on that date.

Regarding the Sporting venues; The MLB season was over and the NFL season ended in December 1966.
The NBA season was around the halfway mark. Need to check the Lakers history....
I don't think soccer was a thing in the US back then, and the NHL in LA...not likely!

Don is correct, looks like the current reproduction, but I suspect its a special piece

Compare the black shape behind the GT500 lettering

smaller...

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM

Quote from: roddster on August 23, 2018, 11:54:16 AM
  Speaking for many of the early 67's (sub #200)  I like to see the car restored in the Late November/Early December configuration.  Meaning slanted grill, GT 500 on the fenders, Dual quad 428 etc.  Next would be the L.A. auto show configuration with the Paxton on the 428.  Either way, my name isn't on the title so it is going to get done the way the new owner wants it done.
  Couple of things:  OK, it has been 50+ years.  The rear seats could have gotten changed but they are not "connolly leather custom upholstery".  Can't tell in the photos about the "Moulton carpeting".  The car never had a roll bar, but those 4 holes in the floor must be from traction bars.  It the tail light panel, seems they left the 67 cutouts in and fitted the 68 tail light panel over it.  And, according to Paul Hewitt, there was a 68 Console installed (Aug 1967) so that is why the 67 under the dash gauges are not there.

I don't know what the holes are for however I high confidence that they are not for traction bars. Traction bras would not be attached to a thin sheet metal floor pan . The thin metal would rip the first time it launched anything approaching hard. That is why traction bars are typically attached to frame rails.

so what is the purpose of these holes?

Quote from: 68blk500c on August 23, 2018, 08:19:23 PM
The car's existing dash emblem should be studied closely to validate originality, simply because of the resemblance to some generations of reproductions.

they made repro emblems back in the day?

Thats the current reproduction made by Scott Drake (reply 166)

It resembles the original prototype emblem, but does not look like the regular production emblems.
( shown in reply 161)

I know its shocking! The reproduction is wrong.....

I think the Little Red emblem looks thicker too

I have run across another engineering car with a one-off emblem

Interesting observations, Pete, on that emblem.  The mounting hole pattern behind it may tell something?

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 24, 2018, 09:17:09 AM
Thats the current reproduction made by Scott Drake (reply 166)

It resembles the original prototype emblem, but does not look like the regular production emblems.
( shown in reply 161)

I know its shocking! The reproduction is wrong.....

I think the Little Red emblem looks thicker too

I have run across another engineering car with a one-off emblem

Would be nice to have all three for a side by side comparison.

Just look at the black shape behind the GT500. The distance from "G" to the bottom, left corner of the black space is way different

Looks like the snake on the reproduction is embossed while little reds is protruding off the emblem. Shapes are slightly different too.

Quoteso what is the purpose of these holes?

Rebound bumpers?

Quote from: 67350#1242 on August 24, 2018, 08:21:22 PM

Quoteso what is the purpose of these holes?

Rebound bumpers?

The holes are not in a area in line with the leaf springs  which they would have to be for a rebound bumper premise to be logical.

Quote from: FL SAAC TONY on August 24, 2018, 08:56:44 AM
so what is the purpose of these holes?

They are positioned and the pattern matches (without measuring) the bolt in roll bars of the period both aftermarket and one Shelby version

Of course we don't know for certain at this point

Speculation buy experts @ the Woodward Dream Cruise was , the holes were for a roll bar.
Brent A

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 24, 2018, 08:27:44 PM

Quote from: FL SAAC TONY on August 24, 2018, 08:56:44 AM
so what is the purpose of these holes?

They are positioned and the pattern matches (without measuring) the bolt in roll bars of the period both aftermarket and one Shelby version

Of course we don't know for certain at this point

We can surmise if in fact is was for a roll bar that It would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar given the thin floor sheet metal the holes are in would flex and give way long before any stress even approaching that during a roll over happened.   

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 24, 2018, 08:42:48 PM
We can surmise if in fact is was for a roll bar that It would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar given the thin floor sheet metal the holes are in would flex and give way long before any stress even approaching that during a roll over happened.

Not sure that that assumption can be made since that was one of the attachment locations (with a plate on the underside of the floor) that Shelby installed on at least some of the 66 Trans-Am race cars and it carried a Shelby part number. The floor attachment was likely due to the class requirements and the retention of the factory rear seat and lower cushion.

But for Little Red we can't say at the moment those designers intent or purpose for possibly installing one

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 24, 2018, 09:25:07 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 24, 2018, 08:42:48 PM
We can surmise if in fact is was for a roll bar that It would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar given the thin floor sheet metal the holes are in would flex and give way long before any stress even approaching that during a roll over happened.

Not sure that that assumption can be made since that was one of the attachment locations (with a plate on the underside of the floor) that Shelby installed on at least some of the 66 Trans-Am race cars and it carried a Shelby part number. The floor attachment was likely due to the class requirements and the retention of the factory rear seat and lower cushion.

But for Little Red we can't say at the moment those designers intent or purpose for possibly installing one

Jeff, the 66 TA roll bar is different then the 67/68 TA roll bar. The roll bar may have had a attachment point on the floor plated on the other side however in the case of the 67 68  the floor attachment point was next to the frame rail where it was attached also.  Beside the floor pan and frame rail attachment points the 67 68 bars also ran at a 45% angle bar that came off of the main hoop and angle to the frame rail next to the wheel house. I have changed my opinion on the holes for a roll bar because on closer inspection of my 68 TA Shelby team car I found that it has the same 4 holes in the floor pan.  With that said and with no sign of any of those extra necessary for rigidity attachment points on ether the coupe or the convert it can be surmised ;) that the roll bar in those cases would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar.

Maybe look at the frame rail extensions to see if an attachment plate was used on the bottom?

Since this was outside the interior panels and in front of the seat, it was probably cosmetic.

I hear there may be some more pictures coming out....the Jackson website is working.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 24, 2018, 10:42:55 PM
Jeff, the 66 TA roll bar is different then the 67/68 TA roll bar. The roll bar may have had a attachment point on the floor plated on the other side however in the case of the 67 68  the floor attachment point was next to the frame rail where it was attached also.  Beside the floor pan and frame rail attachment points the 67 68 bars also ran at a 45% angle bar that came off of the main hoop and angle to the frame rail next to the wheel house. I have changed my opinion on the holes for a roll bar because on closer inspection of my 68 TA Shelby team car I found that it has the same 4 holes in the floor pan.  With that said and with no sign of any of those extra necessary for rigidity attachment points on ether the coupe or the convert it can be surmised ;) that the roll bar in those cases would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar.

As stated and history shows us they were good enough for Shelby to produce, charge and install them as well as owners to race with them. Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. 

Not sure if the picture you showed is of a new 68 Trans-am or one that had been modified (like most) over time but the original list of materials for building the 67 Group II Trans Am cars shows the following bolt - in roll bar. Guessing the "brackets" are the reinforcement plates we've seen on the bottom of the cars.

Don't see a picture of them (roll bar) or a mention, in text,  in the Supplement to the Mustang Specification Catalog but since they would have been included in the first it would make sense that they would not list them again

The work list shows no list of parts, additional brackets or plates and we know Shelby would have charged if they had done all the other work to every car. A number of the 67 Trans am group II cars I've looked at didn't have additional work as you showed in your picture


(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-240818230447.jpeg)


For those that are wondering the document is dated for release 3/10/67 and the roll bar is the same as called out in the 66 Group II Trans Am cars though the shoulder harnesses and other parts are different as one would expect

A little more.  Maybe we're looking at this with 2018 eyes and knowledge rather than the knowledge and practices of the mid 60's. We've learned allot but during those days things were pretty primitive in ways.  So I thought I would offer a 1966 opinion of the roll bar in their own words. Consider also that this sort of roll bar with the same attachment points were being sold most of the hot rod catalogs and in the back pages of magazines. Its likely some members here purchased and installed the same   

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-240818232631.jpeg)




Sure I can find ads that suggest how much safer  the passengers will be from that same period. IMHO does support the opinion of the time - just saying  maybe we're looking at how much good these things did from a very different angle then someone in 1966

:)

Quote from: J_Speegle on August 24, 2018, 11:13:08 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 24, 2018, 10:42:55 PM
Jeff, the 66 TA roll bar is different then the 67/68 TA roll bar. The roll bar may have had a attachment point on the floor plated on the other side however in the case of the 67 68  the floor attachment point was next to the frame rail where it was attached also.  Beside the floor pan and frame rail attachment points the 67 68 bars also ran at a 45% angle bar that came off of the main hoop and angle to the frame rail next to the wheel house. I have changed my opinion on the holes for a roll bar because on closer inspection of my 68 TA Shelby team car I found that it has the same 4 holes in the floor pan.  With that said and with no sign of any of those extra necessary for rigidity attachment points on ether the coupe or the convert it can be surmised ;) that the roll bar in those cases would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar.

As stated and history shows us they were good enough for Shelby to produce, charge and install them as well as owners to race with them. Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. 

The picture you posted does show a plate all by itself

Don't see a picture of them or a mention, in text,  in the Supplement to the Mustang Specification Catalog but since they would have been included in the first it would make sense that they would not list them again

The work list shows no list of parts, additional brackets or plates and we know Shelby would have charged if they had done all the other work to every car. A number of the 67 Trans am group II cars I've looked at didn't have additional work as you showed in your picture


(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-240818230447.jpeg)


For those that are wondering the document is dated for release 3/10/67 and the roll bar is the same as called out in the 66 Group II Trans Am cars though the shoulder harnesses and other parts are different as one would expect

Jeff ,I'm a little surprised at the " Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. " comment because if you are familiar with a 67 TA interior you would have to know that for the TA bar to be used in the coupe or convertible being discussed it would have to be modified well beyond what the scope of what " the racing organizations" would be certifying.
I thought you would be appreciative that I confirmed that the four holes were for a roll bar. Instead you seem to dismiss what the evidence indicates for good or for bad. You appear to dismiss that the evidence indicates that at least on the Coupe and Convert that if a TA roll bar had been used it would have to be modified to work in ether car and in that case as I said it would not be functional but cosmetic only.  Maybe you misunderstood my post. First off the 67/68 roll bar would not fit in a coupe or convert without modifications to the stock interior in a negative appearance way. That alone would indicate a logical reason for some kind of change.  I assumed you were aware that the interior of a 67 TA car rear seat area is highly modified from a stock appearance . Although 2 people could physically fit in the back of one "ample space" is pure magazine hype because it is very cramped and you are not sitting on a regular padded Mustang seat are backrest. The TA seat and back rest is modified in width and thickness being covered in thin vinyl to comply with regulations only with no consideration for a passenger and to fit given the changes the TA roll bar mandates . The interior 1/4 trim of a stock interior was not typically used in a TA car or would it fit given the TA roll bar brace coming off the roll bar and attaching to the frame rail. This fact would indicate a rear brace would not be able to be used on a coupe or convert with a full interior in it.   I will repeat what I said before about the functionality of a roll bar given the floor pan mount when installed in the coupe or convert in question that it was cosmetic only. Given the evidence or lack of evidence that suggests that a roll bar would NOT be of the unmodified  67/68 TA type that you list in your post. All of your evidence is fine for a TA car but no evidence of connection points indicates that the braces were eliminated if in fact a TA roll bar was ever the basis for the roll bar. 

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 25, 2018, 12:28:26 AM
I thought you would be appreciative that I confirmed that the four holes were for a roll bar. Instead you seem to dismiss what the evidence indicates for good or for bad.

Bob if you noticed - comparing your quote of mine and what I type and posted before you did that I was trying to rewrite what I was trying to say and somehow (as we were both quoting and posting) crossed somewhere. Still not sure if my one post clearly explains my beliefs but we can work from here

Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 25, 2018, 12:28:26 AMYou appear to dismiss that the evidence indicates that at least on the Coupe and Convert that if a TA roll bar had been used it would have to be modified to work in ether car and in that case as I said it would not be functional but cosmetic only.

Again will stand by my earlier opinion that it would have been. That is what I was attempting to communicate in reply #183 but we can agree to disagree  and that's ok  :)  Not sure if its that important of an issue given the car we're discussing in the thread. The holes and their use/purpose was and it appears we have a greater understanding of the possibility at this point

Currently I can only locate the pictures I have of the 66 application showing only the metal side panels removed for the wheel well attachments taken in 66. Don't know that the 67 pictures are clear enough to make out the details in those back corners.

Even today, rollbars that bolt to the floor pan are legal and are not much different than 50 years ago.
Granted, the material (now DOM) and welding methods have improved but the pad on most of these bolt-in affairs are not very large and simply sandwich the floor pan.
On the early Mustang bolt-in bars that most vendors sell today you might be lucky if the back two bolts engage into the lip of the rear torque box plate.

The effect of this can be seen here if the car is engaged in a severe roll-over.
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2yy7349.jpg)
Those little posts sticking up are the rear hoop downtubes that have blasted through.

But, this style of rollbar was very common back in the day and is still used today.
You just won't find one in my current race car.

[the driver somehow survived]

Well, we have now taken a thread that about finding the one and only Little Red into an argument about a roll bar. So much negative in this hobby anymore. Can't we be excited about this and all come to an agreement that we don't know all the answers? Some of this takes the fun out of it.

Hi Jason,

I am beyond thrilled to hear Little Red was not crushed. I never thought I'd see this day. It's a incredible discovery to see the pictures of it just sitting in a field getting weathered by the sun. The day when it is finished and parked next to #0100 and #0139 will be something spectacular too see. Until then there will be lots of speculation about what it might have originally been built as, or what point it will be restored to. Perhaps what your reading is not arguments among the experts, but rather just banter on their opinions. Certainly we are all excited by this discovery and hope all the attention it has received from the unveiling will help to bring new info to light.

I'm still trying to figure out when it's first public appearance took place back in early '67. Per the date conflicts, it does not appear to be the LA auto show as previously thought. Please keep us updated on whatever you can share going forward and good luck getting it all sorted out. (I say no vinyl top and all the early '67 details...Hehe.)

Rich P

I too am thrilled that yet another piece of Shelby history has been found.

But I'm a racer and I've had to go through years of rule interpretation on cage design and have designed full blown cages. My current car has a 3 tube NASCAR bar, A-piller bar, head diagonals, and many, many gussets and other reinforcements. And it's welded to larger plates at the floor/sill.

I was trying to add data and found it interesting that bolt-in roll bars haven't changed much in the last 50 years. But today a bolt-in is minimum spec whereas 50 years ago it was deemed adequate for many venues. Adequate until the disasters unfolding in F1 in that same era came to light, which caused the safety ball to start rolling in motorsports.

Back to 67 spec, I say!

I think the rollbar that was in little red was also attached to the roof by the coat hanger  hook hole area that has plugs covering the headliner holes just behind the spoon ! haha

Ed, I hear you have a NOS spoon.

I actually know Uri Geller, so we can get this done.

Quote from: Special Ed on August 27, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
I think the rollbar that was in little red was also attached to the roof by the coat hanger  hook hole area that has plugs covering the headliner holes just behind the spoon ! haha

The plugs look to be in the pockets (cutouts in the inner roof rail liner/panel) where the shoulder belt option would have had their anchor points. Will in interested if there is a nut plate in place there when the headliner  is removed.

67 Coupe coat hanger holes are off of that location slightly (below and to the right/forward in the second picture

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-270818221357.jpeg)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-270818221410.jpeg)

IF they used the S2 roll bar as a starting point upper support arms/brackets would have needed to be fashioned and installed. Distance between the roll bar and mounts would have been different when compared to the 67 Shelby roll bar for the fastback

I think the discussion is good, but like the forum, without some guardrails, things can go astray quickly.

Im pretty sure the roll bar for Little Red would have been more of a cosmetic exercise as opposed to a functional, life saving piece of equipment.

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 28, 2018, 07:47:50 AM
I think the discussion is good, but like the forum, without some guardrails, things can go astray quickly.

Im pretty sure the roll bar for Little Red would have been more of a cosmetic exercise as opposed to a functional, life saving piece of equipment.

Exactly. No surprise there given the nature of the cars .

Would the best guess be that the roll bar was installed for the 1967 or for the 1968 iteration of this car?
(it is actually surprising how complete and restorable looking this car is after so long abandoned - less drivetrain of course)

Posting a smaller picture :)

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/246-280818161417.jpeg)

Did it have the correct Oneida markings??   ;) ;) ;)

Quote from: CharlesTurner on August 28, 2018, 04:36:56 PM
Did it have the correct Oneida markings??   ;) ;) ;)

only the great uri knows....or jimmy, or elvis...

Quote from: 67350#1242 on August 28, 2018, 01:59:35 PM
Would the best guess be that the roll bar was installed for the 1967 or for the 1968 iteration of this car?
(it is actually surprising how complete and restorable looking this car is after so long abandoned - less drivetrain of course)

This is the difficult question with no clear answer.
It appears both the convertible #0139 and Little Red #0131 had the holes in the rear floor boards. Are they in the same locations with identical dimensions?

In April '67 the convertible gets the '68 Shelby appearance roll bar. We know the July '67 photos of Little Red don't show a roll bar. I'm can't imagine the '68 styling bar would work in a hardtop with the crank down windows. Since both cars have the holes, I suspect we are talking about the earliest '67 build version. If they were added early on, how long were they were in the cars? Were they removed quickly if deemed unsightly or unnecessary, particularly for the hardtop? We may never find the answers, but need to keep looking.

It's funny how I've had 3 different patient's of mine bring up Lil Red this week.  They know I'm into classic Fords and they saw the story in the main stream media.  The interesting part is what they took away from the news story.  One guy told me it was a rare, long lost Shelby race car that is worth 34 million dollars!  I think he was getting Lil red and the Ferrari GTO that just sold confused. :o

Where did little red get its name?   A  red 53 Allard J2-X  named little red that had a rollbar in it just sold at RM montery & Shelby used to race an allard .

  Here is another point to ponder:  Study the front 3/4 photo of the earliest lil 'Red photos.  Don't those die cast pockets that the turn signals sit in look chromed?  They do to me.

They do look chrome

Quote from: roddster on August 29, 2018, 05:52:13 PM
  Here is another point to ponder:  Study the front 3/4 photo of the earliest lil 'Red photos.  Don't those die cast pockets that the turn signals sit in look chromed?  They do to me.

I agree they look like chrome on the outer edge, but the inside recesses look dark as if they are painted body color. Maybe the same material used the make the chrome trim around the grille was used around on the die-cast frames.

I understand from my good friends at the Muscle Car and Corvette Nationals in Chi-town in Nov., that this car and the Green Hornet will be on display.  That should be a must see event.

Quote from: billups67 on August 27, 2018, 07:14:06 PM
Well, we have now taken a thread that about finding the one and only Little Red into an argument about a roll bar. So much negative in this hobby anymore. Can't we be excited about this and all come to an agreement that we don't know all the answers? Some of this takes the fun out of it.

Amen

Yes corvette mike i talked to bob ashton at woodward about taking both little red (the way it was found) & green hornet with updated billups resto to fall 2018 mcacn show & putting little red in barn finds section (or field finds) on the end & having green hornet across from it in the restored area so they could still be in the same area together & mr jackson is supposed to be there that weekend.

  Side note:  OK, there is no Shelby vin plate on it now.  And no holes drilled for the rivits.  So, why is the a Shelby vin plate showing in some of the earlier photos of the car.  Did they glue it on?

Quote from: roddster on September 03, 2018, 12:07:59 PM
  Side note:  OK, there is no Shelby vin plate on it now.  And no holes drilled for the rivits.  So, why is the a Shelby vin plate showing in some of the earlier photos of the car.  Did they glue it on?

I'm going to speculate the inner fender was replaced at some point.

All front engine bay metal is original to the car damage was only in front bumper bracket area.

Quote from: roddster on September 03, 2018, 12:07:59 PM
  Side note:  OK, there is no Shelby vin plate on it now.  And no holes drilled for the rivits.  So, why is the a Shelby vin plate showing in some of the earlier photos of the car.  Did they glue it on?

What photos are you looking at that show it with a VIN plate?
There are none that I'm aware of that show that part of the engine compartment.
Perhaps you're mixing up that B&W photo showing a twin Paxton from #2392. It has been used to show what LR might have looked like.

Agreed, I am not aware of any photo showing the engine bay and the tag

I doubt there ever was a Shelby tag attached to Little Red

No hand stamped shelby serial #s on rh shocktower top so no shelby tag riveted over ford # on lh apron top .

You don't know the history of the car and it could be that the Shelby vin caused registration issues.

Back then it was easy to register a stolen shelby by the ford number by removing the plate. The rivet holes could simply have been filled with body filler.

Quote from: shelbydoug on September 03, 2018, 07:50:24 PM
The rivet holes could simply have been filled with body filler.

The pictures do not show an area of depression or distortion where the holes would have been filled in

Quote from: Coralsnake on August 24, 2018, 11:10:19 PM
Maybe look at the frame rail extensions to see if an attachment plate was used on the bottom?

Since this was outside the interior panels and in front of the seat, it was probably cosmetic.

I hear there may be some more pictures coming out....the Jackson website is working.

What new pictures?

Anyone know when the restored Little Red will be unveiled at Barrett-Jackson?

Saturday???

FYI

https://fordauthority.com/2020/01/restored-1967-shelby-gt500-prototype-little-red-to-be-unveiled-tomorrow/

Nice!  Can't wait.

Pete's been awfully "hush, hush" about this unveiling.  ;)

If you are referring to this "Pete" I have not been involved in this restoration.

I do look forward to seeing it

Reveal tomorrow...must be so it can be viewed all weekend by the crowd.

Hello,

Got to see it privately earlier this month along with 0100 and 0139.  It was pretty historic to say the least.  Static displays and driving all 3 cars together took place.  I am FORBIDDEN to post/share any photos, so please do not ask.  You will have to trust me when I say it was a special event that I will never forget, and I was glad to be able to participate.  I still hope that someday the first three production GT500s will share the stage together in an appropriate public venue.

Thanks,
Eric

+ 1

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on January 15, 2020, 08:27:32 PM
Hello,

Got to see it privately earlier this month along with 0100 and 0139.  It was pretty historic to say the least.  Static displays and driving all 3 cars together took place.  I am FORBIDDEN to post/share any photos, so please do not ask.  You will have to trust me when I say it was a special event and I was glad to be able to participate.  I still hope that someday the first three production GT500s will share the stage together in an appropriate public venue.

Thanks,
Eric

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on January 15, 2020, 08:27:32 PM
Hello,

Got to see it privately earlier this month along with 0100 and 0139.  It was pretty historic to say the least.  Static displays and driving all 3 cars together took place.  I am FORBIDDEN to post/share any photos, so please do not ask.  You will have to trust me when I say it was a special event that I will never forget, and I was glad to be able to participate.  I still hope that someday the first three production GT500s will share the stage together in an appropriate public venue.

Thanks,
Eric

WOW Eric. I didn't think it would be that soon all 3 cars together. VERY COOL. Gary

We are heading to BJ now to see little red.

Quote from: Coralsnake on January 15, 2020, 06:31:25 PM
If you are referring to this "Pete" I have not been involved in this restoration.

I do look forward to seeing it

Sorry, Pete!  I assumed you were involved. 

Can't wait to see it as well!

No problem, engineering cars are my interest. Im watching very closely

Looks like restored to late 67 version from press day at riverside I believe.

Quote from: Sixx7shelby on January 16, 2020, 01:56:30 PM
Looks like restored to late 67 version from press day at Riverside I believe.

Hello,

Yes, I am told the restoration was geared towards what the car was at Riverside in early July of '67.  If that is the case, the EXP500 side stripes are confusing to me.  The car wore GT500 side stripes at Riverside.

Eric

Thanks for the pics!

Another one, yes stripes are confusing

You are basing your statements on information that is in the public domain. I believe the restoration team uncovered more photographs

Quote from: Coralsnake on January 16, 2020, 04:04:31 PM
You are basing your statements on information that is in the public domain. I believe the restoration team uncovered more photographs

Hello Pete,

I know they did find more photos.  I guess we will have to wait for the documentary to come out and hopefully provide answers to a lot of the questions regarding the history of the car.

Eric

Quote from: Sixx7shelby on January 16, 2020, 02:10:20 PM
Another one, yes stripes are confusing

Looks very nice!
Twin Paxton's...hmm. I guess they choose the wild side look over the factory SJ installed A/C.
I look forward to seeing the documentary explaining why they went the route they did with the restoration.
Those 'EXP' letters in the side stripes have me curious too.

   I helped with engine parts on both the Green Hornet and Little Red.
      Randy

How much boost 3-4 pounds each? HP?

Also whos got the mounting plate and brackets to mount both blowers at an affordable, not one off price. Heard about cost of the hardware and stopped dreaming. Maybe now, or is VOGT the only one with the plate?

done

Interesting how they are shown next to the "next Gen " cars  ::)

Anyone know if they will show up at Saac 45?

Quote from: csheff on January 17, 2020, 11:23:54 AM
Anyone know if they will show up at Saac 45?

Good question.  The Green Hornet was not at SAAC 44.  My guess would be not, unfortunately.

Are there any photos of the back end of the car?

I can only assume they painted the taillight panel silver and it is a raised panel version. However, with the added "EXP 500' lettering in the side stripes, I wonder if it has the valance cut-out with trim or a stamped GT rear valance panel used later in the 67 model year? (and in '68)

Did anyone notice the SAI LAX lot stickers '061' on both sides of the lower windshield? Brian Styles is most likely the person to thank for that detail.

Quote from: Richstang on January 17, 2020, 01:19:07 PM
Are there any photos of the back end of the car?

I can only assume they painted the taillight panel silver and it is a raised panel version. However, with the added "EXP 500' lettering in the side stripes, I wonder if it has the valance cut-out with trim or a stamped GT rear valance panel used later in the 67 model year? (and in '68)

Did anyone notice the SAI LAX lot stickers '061' on both sides of the lower windshield? Brian Styles is most likely the person to thank for that detail.

Rich,   I found these on Facebook.

Thanks Brian!

As Eric mentioned, it looks like they followed the Riverside LLTC photos, well almost.
Where are those new vintage photos? I guess we have to wait for the documentary, huh.

I seem to recall one of the original engineers was the source.

I am going to say there is probably not a lot of "artistic license" being used

Love the font on those decklid letters

Quote from: Coralsnake on January 17, 2020, 01:51:40 PM
Love the font on those decklid letters

I think they are unique (1 off) to Little Red.
It appears both of the '68 style prototypes have a slightly thinner font on those decklid letters.

Looks like a Times New Roman style of font on the decklid. 

  That car is stellar!   Love it.  There will be more tributes to this.  I'm in the middle of making the November-December 1966 version: Magstars, angled grill one.

Cant wait to see the 1968 version 🤭

For years the only photo I recall ever seeing of the car was a side view, and just assumed it was essentially the clean form of 67 production models, which captured my imagination as a lad.  I realize I am in a minority,  but greatful the lipstick was dropped elsewise... that said, to read the R&T tail of driving it, and seeing still extant warms the core of the soul.

hope it remains as a quasi '67, the Green Hornet is a'68 version of a coupe

Quote from: JD on April 08, 2020, 09:49:10 PM
hope it remains as a '67, the Green Hornet is a'68 version

+1

Quote from: csheff on January 17, 2020, 11:23:54 AM
Anyone know if they will show up at Saac 45?

Only if he's going to offer the pair at Scottsdale. A little pre auction showing to possible phone bidders

Quote from: 2112 on April 08, 2020, 09:50:34 PM

Quote from: JD on April 08, 2020, 09:49:10 PM
hope it remains as a '67, the Green Hornet is a'68 version

+2

+1

The car is remaining as a 1967, but there will be a Mustang built to show the 1968 features. allegedly 🤭

Quote from: 427heaven on January 16, 2020, 06:18:21 PM
Also whos got the mounting plate and brackets to mount both blowers at an affordable, not one off price. Heard about cost of the hardware and stopped dreaming. Maybe now, or is VOGT the only one with the plate?

Does anyone know why the Cobra Automotive dual Paxton GT500 setup has the the supercharger units so much farther apart than on Little Red?  I think the photo shows the Cobra Automotive setup on a 427 rather than a 428, but that should not make a difference.

Quote from: 1968 on April 21, 2021, 02:52:34 PM
Does anyone know why the Cobra Automotive dual Paxton GT500 setup has the the supercharger units so much farther apart than on Little Red?  I think the photo shows the Cobra Automotive setup on a 427 rather than a 428, but that should not make a difference.

My guess is due to battery interference on Little Red and in an effort to keep them symmetrical.

Quote from: CharlesTurner on April 21, 2021, 02:54:28 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 21, 2021, 02:52:34 PM
Does anyone know why the Cobra Automotive dual Paxton GT500 setup has the the supercharger units so much farther apart than on Little Red?  I think the photo shows the Cobra Automotive setup on a 427 rather than a 428, but that should not make a difference.

My guess is due to battery interference on Little Red and in an effort to keep them symmetrical.

That makes sense.  It seems that the Cobra Automotive setup requires the battery to be relocated.  I actually think the Cobra Automotive setup looks more symmetrical.

Is the twin Paxton big block set up from Cobra Automotive the same or similar to the small block twin Paxton setup from Paradise Wheels? 8)

Easier packaging and charge-air hose routing?

   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 21, 2021, 05:03:44 PM
   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Does Craig Conley also sell (or plan to sell) the brackets for the FE (GT500) Little Red-style dual Paxton setup now?  Prior to the Little Red restoration, it seems that only Cobra Automotive had the brackets, and they were a slightly different setup from those used on Little Red, as shown in the photos ^.

Quote from: 1968 on April 21, 2021, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 21, 2021, 05:03:44 PM
   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Does Craig Conley also sell (or plan to sell) the brackets for the FE (GT500) Little Red-style dual Paxton setup now?  Prior to the Little Red restoration, it seems that only Cobra Automotive had the brackets, and they were a slightly different setup from those used on Little Red, as shown in the photos ^.

The little red configuration and brackets from what I understand is a combination of research and best guess scenario. One off vintage little red SC aside, If you want a blower on a FE a somewhat similar looking single modern paxton blower will push more air then the duel vintage versions. I can only imagine the under hood heat and lack of air circulation the duel paxtons have on FE cooling in a bigblock Mustang body.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 21, 2021, 06:44:59 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 21, 2021, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 21, 2021, 05:03:44 PM
   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Does Craig Conley also sell (or plan to sell) the brackets for the FE (GT500) Little Red-style dual Paxton setup now?  Prior to the Little Red restoration, it seems that only Cobra Automotive had the brackets, and they were a slightly different setup from those used on Little Red, as shown in the photos ^.

The little red configuration and brackets from what I understand is a combination of research and best guess scenario. One off vintage little red SC aside, If you want a blower on a FE a somewhat similar looking single modern paxton blower will push more air then the duel vintage versions. I can only imagine the under hood heat and lack of air circulation the duel paxtons have on FE cooling in a bigblock Mustang body.

Heat?  That might be the least of the concerns with that setup! 8)

 When using a set up like this with a "common plenum" intake ( unlike the Edeldrock "cross ram" used on the two Cobras) is blower output MUST be as identical as possible or the "stronger one" will hurt output from the "weaker one". The cross ram separated the engine into essentially two four cylinder manifolds each fed with one blower. Using the Ford manifold allows the "balance passage" in between the two carburetors "could" present an problem "if" one blower had more boost than the other. The reason two blowers are needed on a 427-428 is simply air flow capacity and potential for "boost". A single Paxton doesn't move enough air to supply the larger capacity engine so two are required to get a 5-7 reading on a boost gauge. As Bob mentioned there are more modern designs that can produce 30+ PSI boost as a single.
     Randy

But wouldn't you have a similar problem with the cross ram intake if one blower had more output than the other?  It seems like it might be even worse since the "common plenum" intake would result in less overall boost in that situation while the cross ram intake would result in basically half the engine running with less boost.

So, obviously the dual Paxtons were never offered as a production option.  But would the Little Red dual Paxton 428 "experiment" be considered a failure mechanically?  I thought I heard someone say somewhere that they blew the engine in Little Red somehow while testing back in 1968.  If so, then maybe that would not have happened if they had used a 427 block, like on the dual Paxton 427 Cobra car?

 The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

   Correct!

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

After reading up a bit about the Edelbrock cross ram intake, it seems that it was for more of a high RPM/high top end speed racing application.  It makes sense that for Little Red, they were going for more of a street application by trying to get the superchargers to work with the stock intake on the 428, rather than the cross ram, as used on the supercharged 427 Cobra cars (Bill Cosby and C. Shelby cars).  I guess it did work, for a while.

In "non supercharged" applications the Edelbrock manifold was about equal power wise to a Ford Dual plane. It wasn't designed to be supercharged , but the separation I mentioned allowed it to work. There would have been SERIOUS packaging issues with it on the GT500 and since Little Red was only a "what if" , a new hood was out of the question. There were other issues that popped up during Little Red's supercharged days like transmission shifting when manifold "vacuum" changed to "boost". The "vacuum modulator" didn't like boost and it caused some premature transmission issues , which is how "I" learned about Little Red back in the day.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 23, 2021, 03:00:26 PM
In "non supercharged" applications the Edelbrock manifold was about equal power wise to a Ford Dual plane. It wasn't designed to be supercharged , but the separation I mentioned allowed it to work. There would have been SERIOUS packaging issues with it on the GT500 and since Little Red was only a "what if" , a new hood was out of the question. There were other issues that popped up during Little Red's supercharged days like transmission shifting when manifold "vacuum" changed to "boost". The "vacuum modulator" didn't like boost and it caused some premature transmission issues , which is how "I" learned about Little Red back in the day.

Interesting.  They should have just put a Toploader in it.

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Same engine shot here, 7th image down, but not dated, probably no help.

Mike

https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/09/little-red-mustang-gt-exp-coupe-.html

edit: two paragraphs above the engine image it say by early January '67 a Paxton was added ?

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Quote from: honker on April 23, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Same engine shot here, 7th image down, but not dated, probably no help.

Mike

https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/09/little-red-mustang-gt-exp-coupe-.html

edit: two paragraphs above the engine image it say by early January '67 a Paxton was added ?

Thanks Mike,
I suspect that is the same photo, which was likely found by Paul Newiit, the linked article author.
His 10+ year old book noted a January LA Auto show at the coliseum, which was likely another named event.
Sorry for repeating this, but we know the LA Auto show was in the Pan Pacific Auditorium in late Oct '66.
You might be correct, the photo might be from January.

Quote from: 1968 on April 23, 2021, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Hello Rich,

Yes, MR = Medium Riser.  The component above the alternator is part of the EECS system the car was originally ordered and built with.  I have attached a photo of 0139's engine bay for reference.

Thanks,
Eric 

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 04:24:06 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 23, 2021, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

Well, it was clearly documented that the dual Paxtons were installed at one point, right?  But with no photos, I suppose that exactly how they were set up in the car is speculative.  The way they look on the restored version of Little Red looks pretty ad hoc to me, like something I might do in my garage, just cobbling together whatever brackets or pulleys are lying around.  Maybe that makes sense, given the purpose.  But the Cobra Automotive setup looks a lot more professional, and spreads the Paxtons out wider.  The Cobra Automotive setup also appears to have the battery relocated to the trunk, which is probably the first thing I would do to create space, as was done in other performance Shelbys/Mustangs.

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 23, 2021, 05:39:26 PM

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Hello Rich,

Yes, MR = Medium Riser.  The component above the alternator is part of the EECS system the car was originally ordered and built with.  I have attached a photo of 0139's engine bay for reference.

Thanks,
Eric

No...thank you Eric...for both answers

Quote from: 1968 on April 23, 2021, 05:45:20 PM

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 04:24:06 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 23, 2021, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: Richstang on April 23, 2021, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 22, 2021, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 22, 2021, 10:30:53 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 04:06:19 PM
The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

Well, it was clearly documented that the dual Paxtons were installed at one point, right?  But with no photos, I suppose that exactly how they were set up in the car is speculative.  The way they look on the restored version of Little Red looks pretty ad hoc to me, like something I might do in my garage, just cobbling together whatever brackets or pulleys are lying around.  Maybe that makes sense, given the purpose.  But the Cobra Automotive setup looks a lot more professional, and spreads the Paxtons out wider.  The Cobra Automotive setup also appears to have the battery relocated to the trunk, which is probably the first thing I would do to create space, as was done in other performance Shelbys/Mustangs.

There are no documents outlining the single or the dual Paxton installations...that I'm aware of.
I believe the dual Paxton install on LR was just one of the SAI employee memories, per the documentary.

You are likely correct in the speculative assembly on LR in the recent restoration. Cobra Automotive has been working with these Paxtons for many years. SAI only installed them on a couple dozen cars over about two years. LR and the two Cobra are the only dual Paxtons I'm aware of. It would certainly be wise to follow Cobra Automotive's lead for both performance and perhaps durability if someone were thinking about that direction for there own car.

  I would like  to offer "My personal opinion" on the above engine photo. We know that LR's original engine expired. It makes sense "to me" that the "original" would have had dual blowers and it. SAI would not change a manifold for the "first attempt".
The replacement ( probably a 428 "Cobra" engine) would have a single in an effort to reduce the power that led to engine #1s demise. "I" also feel single adaptation was done at the Santa Monica Paton shop because of the red hoses not used at SAI. Some of my "opinion" is based on a conversation with a former SAI employee that sadly has passed. Bernie should have some recollection on the subject.
   Randy

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 11:52:34 AM
When using a set up like this with a "common plenum" intake ( unlike the Edeldrock "cross ram" used on the two Cobras) is blower output MUST be as identical as possible or the "stronger one" will hurt output from the "weaker one". The cross ram separated the engine into essentially two four cylinder manifolds each fed with one blower. Using the Ford manifold allows the "balance passage" in between the two carburetors "could" present an problem "if" one blower had more boost than the other. The reason two blowers are needed on a 427-428 is simply air flow capacity and potential for "boost". A single Paxton doesn't move enough air to supply the larger capacity engine so two are required to get a 5-7 reading on a boost gauge. As Bob mentioned there are more modern designs that can produce 30+ PSI boost as a single.
     Randy

I found this photo on the Internet.  It is supposedly a vintage over-the-counter Shelby cross ram intake manifold.  I guess they did not use this or another cross ram intake on Little Red because none of them would fit under a stock '67 (or '68) hood.  Or maybe this Shelby intake is for a small block?

Quote from: 1968 on April 26, 2021, 01:54:30 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 11:52:34 AM
When using a set up like this with a "common plenum" intake ( unlike the Edeldrock "cross ram" used on the two Cobras) is blower output MUST be as identical as possible or the "stronger one" will hurt output from the "weaker one". The cross ram separated the engine into essentially two four cylinder manifolds each fed with one blower. Using the Ford manifold allows the "balance passage" in between the two carburetors "could" present an problem "if" one blower had more boost than the other. The reason two blowers are needed on a 427-428 is simply air flow capacity and potential for "boost". A single Paxton doesn't move enough air to supply the larger capacity engine so two are required to get a 5-7 reading on a boost gauge. As Bob mentioned there are more modern designs that can produce 30+ PSI boost as a single.
     Randy

I found this photo on the Internet.  It is supposedly a vintage over-the-counter Shelby cross ram intake manifold.  I guess they did not use this or another cross ram intake on Little Red because none of them would fit under a stock '67 (or '68) hood.  Or maybe this Shelby intake is for a small block?

The intake manifold in your photo is for a 289/302.  I believe it became available in 1969.

Eric

Quote from: 67411F--0100-ENG. on April 26, 2021, 02:03:55 PM

Quote from: 1968 on April 26, 2021, 01:54:30 PM

Quote from: gt350hr on April 22, 2021, 11:52:34 AM
When using a set up like this with a "common plenum" intake ( unlike the Edeldrock "cross ram" used on the two Cobras) is blower output MUST be as identical as possible or the "stronger one" will hurt output from the "weaker one". The cross ram separated the engine into essentially two four cylinder manifolds each fed with one blower. Using the Ford manifold allows the "balance passage" in between the two carburetors "could" present an problem "if" one blower had more boost than the other. The reason two blowers are needed on a 427-428 is simply air flow capacity and potential for "boost". A single Paxton doesn't move enough air to supply the larger capacity engine so two are required to get a 5-7 reading on a boost gauge. As Bob mentioned there are more modern designs that can produce 30+ PSI boost as a single.
     Randy

I found this photo on the Internet.  It is supposedly a vintage over-the-counter Shelby cross ram intake manifold.  I guess they did not use this or another cross ram intake on Little Red because none of them would fit under a stock '67 (or '68) hood.  Or maybe this Shelby intake is for a small block?

The intake manifold in your photo is for a 289/302.  I believe it became available in 1969.

Eric

Thanks.  And I guess they did not make one for the FE?

In any event, it appears that the Edelbrock cross ram intake, and any others for an FE, would not fit under a stock GT500 hood, which is probably why they did not try that on Little Red.  On the dual supercharged 427 Cobras, they built a special scoop that appears to be about two inches high to provide enough clearance.

If you look at the hoods on the two blown 427 Cobras, they have unique "hood scoops" to clear the intake assembly.

I think that the Edelbrock cross rams used were just about the same assembly heights as this ram box is?

If you stay with the C7ZX or MR two four intake, the blower hats for the carbs I believe fit under the stock 67 Shelby hood.

With blowers you can use any kind of a manifold. Blower manifolds are big open plenum things with little or no runners and generally very low. The manifold doesn't do anything. The blowers do.

Quote from: shelbydoug on April 26, 2021, 02:40:43 PM
If you look at the hoods on the two blown 427 Cobras, they have unique "hood scoops" to clear the intake assembly.

I think that the Edelbrock cross rams used were just about the same assembly heights as this ram box is?

If you stay with the C7ZX or MR two four intake, the blower hats for the carbs I believe fit under the stock 67 Shelby hood.

With blowers you can use any kind of a manifold. Blower manifolds are big open plenum things with little or no runners and generally very low. The manifold doesn't do anything. The blowers do.

Yes.  The guys building replicas of the blown 427 Cobras indicate on their forums that the Edelbrock cross ram intake sits a couple of inches higher than the MR two four intake, which is why the special hood scoop was needed.  I presume the clearance on the stock Cobra hoods is about the same as with a '67/'68 GT500, which is likely why they did not try the cross ram intake on Little Red.  They needed to use the stock '67 or a stock '68 hood (since they were also using '68 parts).  Neither one would fit with the cross ram intake, so they went with the MR two four intake.  I have no insider info, that is just a logical explanation.

Quote from: honker on April 23, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Same engine shot here, 7th image down, but not dated, probably no help.

Mike

https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/09/little-red-mustang-gt-exp-coupe-.html

edit: two paragraphs above the engine image it say by early January '67 a Paxton was added ?

Here is some interesting info from that article:

"Little Red began its prototype career as a test bed for some “tire shredding” Shelby technology. The 390 V-8 and C-6 automatic were immediately pulled and replaced with a 427 FE big-block powerplant. The challenge was to combine high performance that would meet the new 1968 emissions requirements for the "big car” Ford sedans. By early January 1967, a Paxton-supercharger was added. This was an early experiment to consider the Paxton as an option for the GT-500, although, as Fred had once stated in an interview: “. . . if you punched it, it would just sit there and spin the tires uncontrollably.” 

Not long after that, Carroll called Fred and wanted to see how Little Red’s Paxton-supercharged 428 would work with a “Shelbyized" C-6, then as a test-bed for the 428 4-barrell, and 428 supercharged engines. There was so much power from all that big-block torque that it broke the C-6 tail-housing, resulting to a swap to a cast-iron Lincoln tail-housing. Over time, several short-term engine and transmission combinations were tried on Little Red. As Fred’s personal vehicle, he would test these drivetrain combinations while driving to and from work at Shelby."


I am not sure how accurate that info is, but it seems to imply that the first modification was a 427 and then with a single Paxton supercharger.  Maybe that photo with the single Paxton is the planned hydraulic 427 that Ford was working on in 1967 as an option for the '68 model year?

I find it strange that they thought it was too powerful with the single Paxton, but then they added another Paxton?  Presumably to get more boost?  That does not make sense.

And then there is this:

"More than one driver had the privilege to test drive Little Red, and of course, it was Carroll Shelby that handed the keys to Car & Driver writer Charles Fox. It was on Friday, October 27th, 1967, while they were attending the Los Angeles Times Grand Prix at Riverside Raceway. Fox wrote about his adventure in the story “Shelby’s Folly,” (as Little Red) powered by a supercharged 427. Fox drove 60 miles to Indio along California's Highway 60, approaching speeds of 140 mph “going up the hill.” Fox added that the only limitation on speed was "the front end lift!" Upon his return, a fleet of County Sheriff’s cars with overheating radiators had chased him back to his hotel, where he was immediately arrested. The arresting cops then had to see what was under the hood, since they’d never seen a car go that fast on Highway 60 – EVER!"


That also references a supercharged 427, by the end of October 1967, well into the 1968 model year.  A lot of unanswered questions...

Charles Fox article referenced by 1968, Google search is your friend  ;)

Fox was an excellent scribe ! Car & Driver was a great magazine back in the day, they were all a little off the wall, which I liked !

Mike

Quote from: honker on April 26, 2021, 05:12:07 PM
Charles Fox article referenced by 1968, Google search is your friend  ;)

Fox was an excellent scribe ! Car & Driver was a great magazine back in the day, they were all a little off the wall, which I liked !

Mike

Thanks for that.  The article indicates that the car had a 427 and a supercharger.  And it also indicates that there was another car like that.  So, was the other one Little Red, with a 428 and a supercharger?  Or maybe they got the 427 info wrong, but you would think these guys would know if it was really a 427, and not a 428.

But the article appears to be from 1978, so it was apparently based on memory.

Of course, the twin Paxton info was apparently based only on memory, and it was 50 years later instead of just 10 years after the fact!

After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading.  ;)

Quote from: shelbydoug on April 27, 2021, 10:29:44 AM
After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading.  ;)

Well, regarding the 427, I figured Fox was just repeating what he was told by Shelby, not that he actually looked down into the engine bay for the cross-bolted mains to confirm the 427.  Now, maybe Shelby fibbed about the 427?  But, I am not sure why he would do that at that time.

Since Little Red was an experimental vehicle, perhaps it did have a 427 at one point, and a 427 with a Paxton at one point (or maybe even twin Paxtons?).  The 427 seems plausible since Ford was testing the hydraulic-lifter 427 in 1967 for the planned release as the top end performance engine for the 1968 model year.  And we all know that the 427 was planned to be a Shelby option for the 1968 model year.  As I recall, it has been confirmed from Ford documents that the 427 was put in a few Mustangs and other cars in 1967 for testing for the 1968 model year, although it ended up going into only the 1968 Mercury Cougar GTE, in production form.  There was a discussion of 427's in Mustangs for testing purposes on the Cobra Jet forum a couple of years ago.  In fact, that discussion was regarding the Cobra Jet development program in late 1967 and how the project was initially referred to as the "427 Cobra Jet," until the Tasca "KR-8" 428 car was brought to Ford with the 428 for testing in late 1967, and the project proceeded with the 428 instead of the 427.  There was apparently also at least one "448" Mustang being tested by Ford in late 1967 (448 ci. is a 427 block with a 428 crank).  There was some discussion from a member of the Tasca family, as I recall reading on the Cobra Jet forum, that the 448 car was the only thing Ford had that beat Tasca's 428 Mustang.

I just wish we had more documentation as to what engine configurations Little Red had at various points.  As it stands, we do not seem to have much documentation, so I guess pretty much anything is possible.

Quote from: shelbydoug on April 27, 2021, 10:29:44 AM
After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading.  ;)

You mean   "one tin soldier"

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 27, 2021, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: shelbydoug on April 27, 2021, 10:29:44 AM
After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading.  ;)

You mean   "one tin soldier"

Ah! Got me again! It's been a long long long time.  ;D

I've become the Roseanne Roseannadanna of SAAC.

   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 27, 2021, 04:41:57 PM
   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

So, the 448 that beat the Tasca "KR-8" 428 Mustang was in a '66 Fairlane?  But there were plans in 1967/1968 to study building 448 Mustangs for the following model year.

In fact, I think it might have been you who posted this in the Cobra Jet forum a couple of years ago:

"The Ford Stock Vehicles Dept procured two '67 Fastback Mustangs for "427 Hydraulic Development" purposes. Both are "S" code assembly line cars that were given a Ford ( brass) asset tag. The green 4 speed was received 12-15-66 and the red automatic was a month earlier at 11-15-66. This information is from a Ford Stock Vehicles internal document. Because o f the very sensitive nature of the information on the page I will not show it , but it is genuine. I have another obtained from a retired Ford worker and it is of the same format but for '69 vehicles. This is the first genuine document noting the "test" cars with that engine. Of interest on the '69 document is a '69 Mustang with the note 448 engine development. That would be the 427 block / 428 crank combination.
    Randy"

Like the 1967 Mustangs used for the 427 engine development for the 1968 model year, it seems that the 448 engine development for the 1969 model year Mustang must have used a 1968 Mustang body (assuming they followed through and actually installed a few 448 engines in the Mustang), right?

Quote from: gt350hr on April 27, 2021, 04:41:57 PM
   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

According to the Little Red documentary, the person who confirmed the dual Paxtons was Ralph Mora.

Mustang Monthly's Shelby history article from a few years ago listed him as:

Ralph Mora   1965-68   body man

    Yes I am familiar with my post from that site. It was the late Bill Holbrook (rip) who was head of the X garage who told me that "Jumpy" Snider's ( actually Ford owned) "test car" had "worked" suspension for better traction than the Mustangs he had available to him at the time. Yes the "X" garage tested all kinds of stuff , performance , economy , and everything in between. I have notes on muffler testing , carburetor calibration testing , gear ratios, convertors and other stuff. It was a very busy place.
Ford worked with TRW to make a "conversion" piston for the 428 crank in the 427 block (448) that eventually was released to the public in '69. Those parts were also tested by the X garage.
    Randy