SAAC Forum

SAAC HQ => Concours Talk => Topic started by: Bob Gaines on December 21, 2018, 02:09:50 AM

Title: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Bob Gaines on December 21, 2018, 02:09:50 AM
I had someone recently that was confused over the differences between big block and small block. Many already know this so it is for those reading that don't I am hoping to help.  There is a difference in the fuelpump arm that can be seen in the pictures. The bigblock has the small bump on the arm that the small block doesn't have. This is the same regardless of if button top or later style fuelpump. Neither will work properly if interchanged with each other. I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: s2ms on December 21, 2018, 12:24:36 PM
Also, if you are thinking about buying one of the older Ford re-manufactured button top pumps, make sure to check the arm style as Bob shows and not  just the Carter number stamped on the mounting flange. Those rebuilders were notorious for throwing a bunch of parts in a bin and not reassembling pumps the same way they came apart. Fairly common to have a small block pump stamped housing with a big block arm. That 4201S pump you think you got a great deal on will be useless with a BB arm.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: 6s1640 on December 21, 2018, 12:41:55 PM
If you get a BB pump accidentally for a small block, I expect Flying Fred can fix by swapping out the arm.  Not a major loss, but will cost you some coin to reverse.

Cory
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: SNAKEBIT on December 23, 2018, 08:06:21 PM
Hey, thanks Mr. Gaines, thanks for bringing up this important topic. It was easy to follow and not much to remember, to keep from making a mistake. One question: these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys? I'm gonna say yes?
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: Bob Gaines on December 23, 2018, 11:48:36 PM
Hey, thanks Mr. Gaines, thanks for bringing up this important topic. It was easy to follow and not much to remember, to keep from making a mistake. One question: these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys? I'm gonna say yes?
Those two arms  wher the ones used on Shelby's one style for GT500 (BB)and the other is for GT350 (SB) .
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: J_Speegle on December 24, 2018, 12:28:20 AM
...... these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys?

No that's allot of years and plenty of changes from filter - non filter. rebuildable - non-rebuildable, markings, fitting size ........
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: SNAKEBIT on January 09, 2019, 09:39:41 AM
Oh? Do tell?  ???
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: SNAKEBIT on January 09, 2019, 09:45:40 AM
Before I joined this website forum to learn about Shelbys, I didn't know that there was an engine size difference between the 350s and the 500s. I thought you could get any optional engine for both of them, like a small block being standard for the 350, but you could get an optional big-block for it. I just mostly know about Mopars and some of their parts. I don't really know about their fuel pumps! Oh, boy. ::) :o ;D
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: 1967 eight barrel on January 31, 2019, 05:29:42 AM
Before I joined this website forum to learn about Shelbys, I didn't know that there was an engine size difference between the 350s and the 500s. I thought you could get any optional engine for both of them, like a small block being standard for the 350, but you could get an optional big-block for it. I just mostly know about Mopars and some of their parts. I don't really know about their fuel pumps! Oh, boy. ::) :o ;D

Just the beginning...
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: SNAKEBIT on February 06, 2019, 07:12:58 PM
Yep, just the beginning. I really like different parts from the different years of '67, '68, '69-'70. I want a convertible, but the didn't make them in '67. I like the '67's a lot. The 10 spokes are great, but they didn't come on the '69-'70 models. I like the '67 steering wheel the best and the exhaust of the '69-'70 models is the best. What is a guy to do?
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 06, 2019, 09:30:27 PM
i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yep, just the beginning. I really like different parts from the different years of '67, '68, '69-'70. I want a convertible, but the didn't make them in '67. I like the '67's a lot. The 10 spokes are great, but they didn't come on the '69-'70 models. I like the '67 steering wheel the best and the exhaust of the '69-'70 models is the best. What is a guy to do?
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 06, 2019, 10:22:22 PM
i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yes and maybe ;)  The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that. The million dollar question is whether it was ever built to look like a 67 Shelby . Unfortunately unlike all of the pictures of obscure ,proto type cars like Little Red ,The Green Hornet, etc. there are no pictures of the 67 Shelby convertible in anything but numerous pictures (100's?) pictures of it in 1968 Shelby trim. It is the red 68 convertible on the color dealer brochure . We do know that for a fact .  It was also painted white for other advertising pictures.  It is more then a little strange that if it was meant to be in 67 Shelby trim that there is no picture record of it like other obscure Shelby cars.  Shelby didn't miss a opportunity to photograph just about every unusual or obscure car that they made.  You would think that something as out of the ordinary as a 67 Shelby convertible that there would be pictures of it like so many other Shelby cars . That is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim . The jury is still out on if it was ever in 67 Shelby trim back in the day . The owner wants to believe that it was . I don't blame him. The evidence or the lack of evidence is leaning towards it being the convertible engineering car for 68 production. Maybe some day definitive evidence will confirm that for a short time it was in 67 Shelby trim.  It is a cool and historic car regardless.The current owner chose to first restore it as it was in the 68 Shelby color brochure car trim and then decided later to re restore the car in 67 Shelby trim which it is currently in. Too bad Shelby didn't offer a convertible in the 67 model year because it would have been cool. 
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 06, 2019, 10:53:45 PM
With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yes and maybe ;)  The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that. The million dollar question is whether it was ever built to look like a 67 Shelby . Unfortunately unlike all of the pictures of obscure ,proto type cars like Little Red ,The Green Hornet, etc. there are no pictures of the 67 Shelby convertible in anything but numerous pictures (100's?) pictures of it in 1968 Shelby trim. It is the red 68 convertible on the color dealer brochure . We do know that for a fact .  It was also painted white for other advertising pictures.  It is more then a little strange that if it was meant to be in 67 Shelby trim that there is no picture record of it like other obscure Shelby cars.  Shelby didn't miss a opportunity to photograph just about every unusual or obscure car that they made.  You would think that something as out of the ordinary as a 67 Shelby convertible that there would be pictures of it like so many other Shelby cars . That is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim . The jury is still out on if it was ever in 67 Shelby trim back in the day . The owner wants to believe that it was . I don't blame him. The evidence or the lack of evidence is leaning towards it being the convertible engineering car for 68 production. Maybe some day definitive evidence will confirm that for a short time it was in 67 Shelby trim.  It is a cool and historic car regardless.The current owner chose to first restore it as it was in the 68 Shelby color brochure car trim and then decided later to re restore the car in 67 Shelby trim which it is currently in. Too bad Shelby didn't offer a convertible in the 67 model year because it would have been cool.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 06, 2019, 11:47:46 PM
With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

No disputing it is one of one. Technically it is a 67 Shelby convertible but since it has only been seen in 1968 trim back in the day raise the question is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim. The need for photos is because there is only photographic evidence is that it was used as a 68 prototype . It has a engineering vin tag which typically means a development car. It is apparent that there are no regular production 67 Shelby convertibles otherwise there would be more. All 67 Shelby vins are accounted for. Since there were no other 67 Shelby convertibles then why a development car for 67 Shelby convertibles ? The logically deduction is that it was a development car for the new for 1968 convertible model which we have proof of the car as such. The lead time involved for development and advertising photo shoot  for the upcoming model year would be a reasonable explanation for using a pre production 1967 chassis. By the time 68 models came out it would be too late.  There were no convertibles built as a 67 Shelby according to SA records found , SAAC Registry and SAAC Registrar until further evidence can be confirmed. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.  That is why a picture or pictures are a reasonable expectation for a extra ordinary claim. Especially since so many other obscure Shelby's and Ford Performance cars photos have survived the test of time. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of others. It is a cool car and I hope definitive proof is forthcoming because it would be of important historical signifigance for the Shelby story. Until then it is a maybe in 67 trim wishful thinking or not.



Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 07:54:09 AM
Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you


With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

No disputing it is one of one. Technically it is a 67 Shelby convertible but since it has only been seen in 1968 trim back in the day raise the question is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim. The need for photos is because there is only photographic evidence is that it was used as a 68 prototype . It has a engineering vin tag which typically means a development car. It is apparent that there are no regular production 67 Shelby convertibles otherwise there would be more. All 67 Shelby vins are accounted for. Since there were no other 67 Shelby convertibles then why a development car for 67 Shelby convertibles ? The logically deduction is that it was a development car for the new for 1968 convertible model which we have proof of the car as such. The lead time involved for development and advertising photo shoot  for the upcoming model year would be a reasonable explanation for using a pre production 1967 chassis. By the time 68 models came out it would be too late.  There were no convertibles built as a 67 Shelby according to SA records found , SAAC Registry and SAAC Registrar until further evidence can be confirmed. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.  That is why a picture or pictures are a reasonable expectation for a extra ordinary claim. Especially since so many other obscure Shelby's and Ford Performance cars photos have survived the test of time. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of others. It is a cool car and I hope definitive proof is forthcoming because it would be of important historical signifigance for the Shelby story. Until then it is a maybe in 67 trim wishful thinking or not.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 07, 2019, 11:14:12 AM
Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you



No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: CharlesTurner on February 07, 2019, 01:31:13 PM
I have nothing to add other than 'extraordinary' is one word   ;) ;)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 01:43:21 PM
+ 1

I have nothing to add other than 'extraordinary' is one word   ;) ;)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 01:51:05 PM
I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you



No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 07, 2019, 04:59:46 PM
I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you



No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.
You are misinformed.You might want to do more research on this subject next time. This information is not secret and available to all. You can always  pick up a copy of the 65,66,67 Shelby registry and be more versed on the subject . From the SAAC registry " Upon arrival it was designated a Company car Engineering Proto" on the production order dated 12/7/66".  Further more SA factory paperwork referred to it while filling a insurance claim as "Repairs of Engineering 1968 Proto type convertible stolen and returned,April1967" . This is also in the Registry. I would say that is concrete proof that it is NOT a regular production car. If you still want to contend with the facts take it up with the SAAC Registrar Dave Mathews rather then posing more silly scenario's .  Bless your heart.  ;)  That is what you like to say in your posts isn't it?
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Coralsnake on February 07, 2019, 05:37:33 PM
Confucius says, "He who argues with a fool, will always loose"




Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 05:45:20 PM
then the green snake with envy chimed in...welcome to the good old boys club

Confucius says, "He who argues with a fool, will always loose"
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Coralsnake on February 07, 2019, 05:49:17 PM
Quote
then the green snake with envy chimed in...welcome to the good old boys club


Not all cars sent to Shelby were "Shelbys" or received Shelby serial numbers.

I am not sure why you want to start name calling... I might suggest...you stick to what you are good at:  posting about other people's car shows, posts of affirmation and taking pictures from the internet.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump diferance
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 05:49:43 PM
Mr Gaines with all due respect;


It is my understanding that Mr Styles wrote the footnotes for 0139 in that registry, and what he was told by you an others back in 2010 is far, far from what is factually known today....


After all, if we took things printed years ago as fact, then I guess we'd all still believe that your car, #0001, was the "first '67 G.T. 350." That is your quote from a 2013 Mustang Monthly article, isn't it?


Yes, 0139's Production Order appears to be labeled "Co Car - Engineering Proto". So was #0131's. So what? We all know that both cars have a completed date of 12/7/66, and they'd both share the same deck lid and end caps. We also know that #0131 wore '67 styled fiberglass. Why is it so unimaginable for you to believe both cars ordered at same time and finished at same time were completed differently? Once again, your position is the one that requires extraordinary proof.


Regarding #0139's April 1967 theft invoice: Now you're talking about the second part of the car's life at Shelby (circa April 1967) -- after the car was upgraded with 68-styled fiberglass to serve as an advertising car. #0463 (the Acapulco Blue advertising fastback), #0131 (Little Red) and #0100 (the first GT500) were all updated with '68 styled fiberglass before they were sold to the public. Despite the term 'proto' used on a couple documents that refers to #0463 and #0139 these cars are far from actual prototypes ... unless you just down't understand what that word means.

Thank you


I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you



No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.
You are misinformed.You might want to do more research on this subject next time. This information is not secret and available to all. You can always  pick up a copy of the 65,66,67 Shelby registry and be more versed on the subject . From the SAAC registry " Upon arrival it was designated a Company car Engineering Proto" on the production order dated 12/7/66".  Further more SA factory paperwork referred to it while filling a insurance claim as "Repairs of Engineering 1968 Proto type convertible stolen and returned,April1967" . This is also in the Registry. I would say that is concrete proof that it is NOT a regular production car. If you still want to contend with the facts take it up with the SAAC Registrar Dave Mathews rather then posing more silly scenario's .  Bless your heart.  ;)  That is what you like to say in your posts isn't it?
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 05:50:54 PM
So why do you continue to comment?

Your ignorance needs no comment.

Not all cars sent to Shelby were "Shelbys" or received Shelby serial numbers.

Since you want to start name calling...

Stick to what you are good at posting other people's car shows, posts of affirmation and taking pictures from the internet.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Coralsnake on February 07, 2019, 05:56:56 PM
Hey everyone, Tony is going to get his first "real post"

Yeah for Tony, he is finally contributing to the forum!
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 06:00:50 PM
These where part of this lovely conversation

Hey everyone, Tony is going to get his first "real post"

Yeah for Tony, he is finally contributing to the forum!
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 07, 2019, 06:20:39 PM
Back up for reply # 23
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Coralsnake on February 07, 2019, 06:43:18 PM
The term prototype is used for cars built before actual production. Sometimes as much as two years before production. Its entirely feasible 139 was solely intended to be a 1968 mule. Brians theory may also be valid. If it is, why build one 1967 convertible, if you know there will not be more? 

There is no doubt #139 was an engineering car. Engineering cars do not follow production rules.

Bobs car is the first serialized 1967 production car.

I refer those interested to page 803 of the 1968/69 Shelby World Registry for a more detailed explanation
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Richstang on February 07, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans given to Shelby and cover the costs of all those unsold '67 units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock. It appears there were no more orders from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was the only 1967 Shelby "serialized" convertible model.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 07, 2019, 11:57:17 PM
Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans to given to Shelby and costs all those unsold units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock as it seem there were no more order from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was a 1967 Shelby serialized model.
I know I stated that in my first post on the subject in reply #11 . The documentation Brian has found can be seen as more circumstantial then definitive other wise it would have convinced more people . A vintage photo would cut through the speculation which is why myself and others in the Shelby concours and registry community have not been more accepting to his point of view. Unlike the 66 GT350 convertibles that we do not have vintage pictures of (FYI I don't think Dave Friedman was working with Shelby at that time) we do have other SA documentation supporting that they were built. Even CS himself talking about them . CS was unusually silent about the 67 Convertible subject when asked by comparison. The fact that there isn't any picture or pictures besides the lack of information surrounding the trim of the car other then as a 68 proto type nags at a lot of us given the pictures of other obscure prototype cars that did survive the test of time. Photo documentation was a large part of the early Shelby story at LAX which adds to the mystery. The information Brian has accumulated certainly keeps the door open to the possibility of for a short time 139 being in 67 trim which is why I say "maybe" instead of never was. I hate playing devils advocate about this subject so I hope more definitive evidence to support one way or the other is forth coming.   
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: KerryBWhite on February 08, 2019, 12:30:39 AM
Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans given to Shelby and cover the costs of all those unsold '67 units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock. It appears there were no more orders from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was the only 1967 Shelby "serialized" convertible model.
tion All excellent points. I also agree with Richstang
 The research and especially, all the documentation Brian has provided on "1967 shelbyconvertible.com" is amazing. To spend 10 years just doing research on #0139, #100, #131 and all things related to the '67 Shelbys is true desire and enthusiasm. What does Brian actually have to gain from all his effort?-I believe it is just plain old fashion love and desire for Shelbys, like many others on this forum have. Its to bad he is thrown off the SAAC forum, he has so much to offer all Shelby enthusiast with his endless desire doing research and gathering data.
Check out the 45 different topics on 1967 Shelby Research page.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/shelbyresearch
Allot of great information
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Coralsnake on February 08, 2019, 07:32:05 AM
I am glad to see the discussion has shifted as well.

I dont think anyone is debating Brians car is a real Shelby or what it was used for.

My reading of Mr Gaines’ original post merely pointed out there was no photographs. That fact does not change what happened.

I know there were big block supercharged and EFI cars and there are no pictures.

Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 08, 2019, 07:55:32 AM
Agreed


Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans given to Shelby and cover the costs of all those unsold '67 units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock. It appears there were no more orders from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was the only 1967 Shelby "serialized" convertible model.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 08, 2019, 07:57:06 AM
+ 1


Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans given to Shelby and cover the costs of all those unsold '67 units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock. It appears there were no more orders from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was the only 1967 Shelby "serialized" convertible model.
tion All excellent points. I also agree with Richstang
 The research and especially, all the documentation Brian has provided on "1967 shelbyconvertible.com" is amazing. To spend 10 years just doing research on #0139, #100, #131 and all things related to the '67 Shelbys is true desire and enthusiasm. What does Brian actually have to gain from all his effort?-I believe it is just plain old fashion love and desire for Shelbys, like many others on this forum have. Its to bad he is thrown off the SAAC forum, he has so much to offer all Shelby enthusiast with his endless desire doing research and gathering data.
Check out the 45 different topics on 1967 Shelby Research page.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/shelbyresearch
Allot of great information
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 08, 2019, 08:06:07 AM
Good morning,

Our apologies if we have offended anyone.

1967 Shelby convertible #0139 was a production vehicle, built DURING production (both at Ford and at Shelby) - unless you don't believe all the dates.

Shelby didn't need more test mules- that was the purpose of the four '66 convertibles. This is all documented quite well. http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1966-06-07-staff-meeting-minutes.asp

Call 0001 whatever you want. That wasn't the point, now was it? The point was that it was previously PRINTED that it was the first built. It wasn't. This means that just because something was printed it doesn't guarantee that it is, was or remains accurate.

Same goes for the 68-70 registry. I'm sure we could find errors in that print as well.

If Shelby didn't plan for a Convertible and/or Hardtop models in '67, why create package codes and VINs with a letter to designate the body style?
F = fastback
C = convertible
H = hardtop
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 08, 2019, 10:43:13 AM
Good morning,

Our apologies if we have offended anyone.

1967 Shelby convertible #0139 was a production vehicle, built DURING production (both at Ford and at Shelby) - unless you don't believe all the dates.

Shelby didn't need more test mules- that was the purpose of the four '66 convertibles. This is all documented quite well. http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1966-06-07-staff-meeting-minutes.asp

Call 0001 whatever you want. That wasn't the point, now was it? The point was that it was previously PRINTED that it was the first built. It wasn't. This means that just because something was printed it doesn't guarantee that it is, was or remains accurate.

Same goes for the 68-70 registry. I'm sure we could find errors in that print as well.

If Shelby didn't plan for a Convertible and/or Hardtop models in '67, why create package codes and VINs with a letter to designate the body style?
F = fastback
C = convertible
H = hardtop
Tony , the effort to bring 0001 into the conversation is a transparent attempt to be hurtful and counter productive. It is not very relevant to the discussion as a magazine article. FYI the magazine article you mention was not given to me for review and there are errors and misquotes. The points you make are not definitive because reasonable alternative explanations can be posed to explain the various things. However the many questions have kept the conversation going until more definitive evidence can answer the questions one way or the other . You and Brian (your editor)have a foregone conclusion. I still have questions and so do others in the SAAC registry and concours Shelby community. Hopefully more new evidence will be dug up to answer the many questions one way or the other.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Richstang on February 08, 2019, 01:47:38 PM
Bob, my initial post was not directed specifically to you, but rather to everyone reading to keep it civil. Yes you did state it was a serialized 1967 Shelby convertible. The one point I wanted to make was that the 1967 Shelby convertible was clearly intended for production as the June 1966 memo letter stated. A few weeks later Shelby American ordered the three sister 67 GT500s (#0100, #0131 & #0139) in each body style. As an appearance evaluation model they would seem appropriate. Testing the 428 motor would give them dual purpose, something I would expect from SA. There would not be a need for multiple convertibles since it was planned as a later spring launched model. I just can’t justify those cars (#0131 and #0139) sitting around for 4-5 months as knockdown units, knowing they were the first of each body style with future production intentions. The multiple package codes created for each body style supports that thought. It would certainly be nice to see photos of any of these 3 sister cars on arrival or sitting on the lot in their knockdown form. Car #0100 which was the first production GT500 fastback has the fortune of being photographed by numerous media outlets. There are no signs of the other two sister cars since the focus was getting the fastback completed and marketed to the public ASAP. There are no photos at LAX in the build phase or engineering development phase on any of the 3 sister cars. Yes, I believe Dave Freidman did leave Shelby American at the end of 1965, but still there are no photos of the 4 ’66 GT350 convertibles despite the future intentions. Freidman might be the person who took photos of the last prototypes built in late ’65 (the ‘66 vinyl roof car and the ’66 supercharged car). After that, prototypes photos from SA are nowhere to be found. Maybe I am missing something, but what other obscure prototypes were there from late ‘65 onward from LAX?

Certainly any vintage photo of (#0131 or #0139) getting built, driven, or tested would limit all of these discussions. I disagree that CS & others were unusually silent specifically about #0139. I recall most of CS interviews focused on the racing teams or how he helped Ford build a performance version of the “Secretary Mustang”. There was a video interview where he discussed the 1967 convertible. It’ s been quite a few years since I’ve seen it, but I recall him mention it was loaned to someone and stolen from their apartment building. That would indicate the car was completed and drivable prior to the ’68 fiberglass installation. The insurance papers filed afterward conveniently detail all the needed parts for the ’68 transformation. Another interview with Fred Goodell mentioned the same story in more detail. Fred notes it was parked overnight at the apartment when stolen. It was stripped very clean and rebuilt after the theft. Another clear indication it was a completed car prior to this incident.

I agree adding #0001 to this conversation is not productive. It comes across vindictive. The MM article is an older issue with some misinformation, it happens. Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.

I’m glad Brian built #0139 originally in the ’68 fiberglass as the media / marketed introduction to the ’68 styling. The photos of it with the serialized 1967 fastback #0463 also in the ’68 fiberglass were neat to see paired together for that past point in history. His additional effort and expensive to re-restore it after he found the additional documents was surprising. He didn’t follow the easy path and he must have known some of the resistance he was going to face. I think the car restored in the earliest completed version was the right choice.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: KerryBWhite on February 08, 2019, 03:06:39 PM
Bob, my initial post was not directed specifically to you, but rather to everyone reading to keep it civil. Yes you did state it was a serialized 1967 Shelby convertible. The one point I wanted to make was that the 1967 Shelby convertible was clearly intended for production as the June 1966 memo letter stated. A few weeks later Shelby American ordered the three sister 67 GT500s (#0100, #0131 & #0139) in each body style. As an appearance evaluation model they would seem appropriate. Testing the 428 motor would give them dual purpose, something I would expect from SA. There would not be a need for multiple convertibles since it was planned as a later spring launched model. I just can’t justify those cars (#0131 and #0139) sitting around for 4-5 months as knockdown units, knowing they were the first of each body style with future production intentions. The multiple package codes created for each body style supports that thought. It would certainly be nice to see photos of any of these 3 sister cars on arrival or sitting on the lot in their knockdown form. Car #0100 which was the first production GT500 fastback has the fortune of being photographed by numerous media outlets. There are no signs of the other two sister cars since the focus was getting the fastback completed and marketed to the public ASAP. There are no photos at LAX in the build phase or engineering development phase on any of the 3 sister cars. Yes, I believe Dave Freidman did leave Shelby American at the end of 1965, but still there are no photos of the 4 ’66 GT350 convertibles despite the future intentions. Freidman might be the person who took photos of the last prototypes built in late ’65 (the ‘66 vinyl roof car and the ’66 supercharged car). After that, prototypes photos from SA are nowhere to be found. Maybe I am missing something, but what other obscure prototypes were there from late ‘65 onward from LAX?

Certainly any vintage photo of (#0131 or #0139) getting built, driven, or tested would limit all of these discussions. I disagree that CS & others were unusually silent specifically about #0139. I recall most of CS interviews focused on the racing teams or how he helped Ford build a performance version of the “Secretary Mustang”. There was a video interview where he discussed the 1967 convertible. It’ s been quite a few years since I’ve seen it, but I recall him mention it was loaned to someone and stolen from their apartment building. That would indicate the car was completed and drivable prior to the ’68 fiberglass installation. The insurance papers filed afterward conveniently detail all the needed parts for the ’68 transformation. Another interview with Fred Goodell mentioned the same story in more detail. Fred notes it was parked overnight at the apartment when stolen. It was stripped very clean and rebuilt after the theft. Another clear indication it was a completed car prior to this incident.

I agree adding #0001 to this conversation is not productive. It comes across vindictive. The MM article is an older issue with some misinformation, it happens. Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.

I’m glad Brian built #0139 originally in the ’68 fiberglass as the media / marketed introduction to the ’68 styling. The photos of it with the serialized 1967 fastback #0463 also in the ’68 fiberglass were neat to see paired together for that past point in history. His additional effort and expensive to re-restore it after he found the additional documents was surprising. He didn’t follow the easy path and he must have known some of the resistance he was going to face. I think the car restored in the earliest completed version was the right choice.

+1 :)
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 08, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
Bob, my initial post was not directed specifically to you, but rather to everyone reading to keep it civil. Yes you did state it was a serialized 1967 Shelby convertible. The one point I wanted to make was that the 1967 Shelby convertible was clearly intended for production as the June 1966 memo letter stated. A few weeks later Shelby American ordered the three sister 67 GT500s (#0100, #0131 & #0139) in each body style. As an appearance evaluation model they would seem appropriate. Testing the 428 motor would give them dual purpose, something I would expect from SA. There would not be a need for multiple convertibles since it was planned as a later spring launched model. I just can’t justify those cars (#0131 and #0139) sitting around for 4-5 months as knockdown units, knowing they were the first of each body style with future production intentions. The multiple package codes created for each body style supports that thought. It would certainly be nice to see photos of any of these 3 sister cars on arrival or sitting on the lot in their knockdown form. Car #0100 which was the first production GT500 fastback has the fortune of being photographed by numerous media outlets. There are no signs of the other two sister cars since the focus was getting the fastback completed and marketed to the public ASAP. There are no photos at LAX in the build phase or engineering development phase on any of the 3 sister cars. Yes, I believe Dave Freidman did leave Shelby American at the end of 1965, but still there are no photos of the 4 ’66 GT350 convertibles despite the future intentions. Freidman might be the person who took photos of the last prototypes built in late ’65 (the ‘66 vinyl roof car and the ’66 supercharged car). After that, prototypes photos from SA are nowhere to be found. Maybe I am missing something, but what other obscure prototypes were there from late ‘65 onward from LAX?

Certainly any vintage photo of (#0131 or #0139) getting built, driven, or tested would limit all of these discussions. I disagree that CS & others were unusually silent specifically about #0139. I recall most of CS interviews focused on the racing teams or how he helped Ford build a performance version of the “Secretary Mustang”. There was a video interview where he discussed the 1967 convertible. It’ s been quite a few years since I’ve seen it, but I recall him mention it was loaned to someone and stolen from their apartment building. That would indicate the car was completed and drivable prior to the ’68 fiberglass installation. The insurance papers filed afterward conveniently detail all the needed parts for the ’68 transformation. Another interview with Fred Goodell mentioned the same story in more detail. Fred notes it was parked overnight at the apartment when stolen. It was stripped very clean and rebuilt after the theft. Another clear indication it was a completed car prior to this incident.

I agree adding #0001 to this conversation is not productive. It comes across vindictive. The MM article is an older issue with some misinformation, it happens. Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.

I’m glad Brian built #0139 originally in the ’68 fiberglass as the media / marketed introduction to the ’68 styling. The photos of it with the serialized 1967 fastback #0463 also in the ’68 fiberglass were neat to see paired together for that past point in history. His additional effort and expensive to re-restore it after he found the additional documents was surprising. He didn’t follow the easy path and he must have known some of the resistance he was going to face. I think the car restored in the earliest completed version was the right choice.
I hate playing devils advocate on this subject because I only want to get at the truth but your example of the memos could be explained as the project was scheduled like early memos indicate but the logistics and mid year introduction wouldn't make sense so the next model year was deemed to be the target introduction which from the evidence or lack of the program from happening could be the case. The project was still born . A similar example is the 1970 Boss 302 Shelby for example. 50 were planned as 70 models , one chassis was ordered and built but it never got completed with fiberglass. It sat around unfinished. This is a known example that "could be" comparable to the convertible not getting completed. The point is that just as reasonable of a explanation can explain the circumstantial evidence . I am not advocating dismissing the possibility of it being 67 trim but just saying I think that it is still to soon to jump to that conclusion until more information comes in.  Heck we are surprised to see someone found 131 when it has been thought it had been crushed for decades. That is exciting new information . Maybe something just around the corner will turn up relating to the 139 that will fill in the gaps. I was the one that suggested to Brian that while restoring the car in the 68 prototype trim that he also fit the 67 fiberglass at the same time so that if definitive evidence presented itself in the future he could more easily convert it to 67 trim if he so desired . He decided not to do it at that time . If others choose to jump to conclusion based on the evidence at hand that is their prerogative. I am keeping a open mind for ether point of view until more definitive information fills the gaps which is my prerogative.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 11, 2019, 10:06:39 AM
Good morning

Excellent points you have made with the exception of #001 those are facts.


Bob, my initial post was not directed specifically to you, but rather to everyone reading to keep it civil. Yes you did state it was a serialized 1967 Shelby convertible. The one point I wanted to make was that the 1967 Shelby convertible was clearly intended for production as the June 1966 memo letter stated. A few weeks later Shelby American ordered the three sister 67 GT500s (#0100, #0131 & #0139) in each body style. As an appearance evaluation model they would seem appropriate. Testing the 428 motor would give them dual purpose, something I would expect from SA. There would not be a need for multiple convertibles since it was planned as a later spring launched model. I just can’t justify those cars (#0131 and #0139) sitting around for 4-5 months as knockdown units, knowing they were the first of each body style with future production intentions. The multiple package codes created for each body style supports that thought. It would certainly be nice to see photos of any of these 3 sister cars on arrival or sitting on the lot in their knockdown form. Car #0100 which was the first production GT500 fastback has the fortune of being photographed by numerous media outlets. There are no signs of the other two sister cars since the focus was getting the fastback completed and marketed to the public ASAP. There are no photos at LAX in the build phase or engineering development phase on any of the 3 sister cars. Yes, I believe Dave Freidman did leave Shelby American at the end of 1965, but still there are no photos of the 4 ’66 GT350 convertibles despite the future intentions. Freidman might be the person who took photos of the last prototypes built in late ’65 (the ‘66 vinyl roof car and the ’66 supercharged car). After that, prototypes photos from SA are nowhere to be found. Maybe I am missing something, but what other obscure prototypes were there from late ‘65 onward from LAX?

Certainly any vintage photo of (#0131 or #0139) getting built, driven, or tested would limit all of these discussions. I disagree that CS & others were unusually silent specifically about #0139. I recall most of CS interviews focused on the racing teams or how he helped Ford build a performance version of the “Secretary Mustang”. There was a video interview where he discussed the 1967 convertible. It’ s been quite a few years since I’ve seen it, but I recall him mention it was loaned to someone and stolen from their apartment building. That would indicate the car was completed and drivable prior to the ’68 fiberglass installation. The insurance papers filed afterward conveniently detail all the needed parts for the ’68 transformation. Another interview with Fred Goodell mentioned the same story in more detail. Fred notes it was parked overnight at the apartment when stolen. It was stripped very clean and rebuilt after the theft. Another clear indication it was a completed car prior to this incident.

I agree adding #0001 to this conversation is not productive. It comes across vindictive. The MM article is an older issue with some misinformation, it happens. Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.

I’m glad Brian built #0139 originally in the ’68 fiberglass as the media / marketed introduction to the ’68 styling. The photos of it with the serialized 1967 fastback #0463 also in the ’68 fiberglass were neat to see paired together for that past point in history. His additional effort and expensive to re-restore it after he found the additional documents was surprising. He didn’t follow the easy path and he must have known some of the resistance he was going to face. I think the car restored in the earliest completed version was the right choice.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 11, 2019, 10:12:07 AM
Good morning Mr Gaines

I have copied your statements in black and have answered in red

Tony , the effort to bring 0001 into the conversation is a transparent attempt to be hurtful and counter productive. It is not very relevant to the discussion as a magazine article.

No it is relevant , here we see clearly how printed articles contribute to confusion

FYI the magazine article you mention was not given to me for review and there are errors and misquotes. The points you make are not definitive because reasonable alternative explanations can be posed to explain the various things.

So you by your own admissions, this happens very frequently errors and misqoutes

 However the many questions have kept the conversation going until more definitive evidence can answer the questions one way or the other .

What stronger case than material evidence, you have the vehicle. It has not been destroyed, lost then found, reconstructed or rematerialized from thin air. Has its original sheet metal and Shelby vin tag.  Whereabouts have been known for years and can be traced.  The only set back this vehicle has had was the reported theft. This clearly explains how it was transformed from a 1967 to a 1968 as they took the liberty to upgrade to next years model by ordering the 1968 parts.
 Fast forward to today, it is registered legally as a 1967 Shelby convertible.

 You and Brian (your editor) have a foregone conclusion.

Once again you are incorrect (no Brian here) on your assumption. This falls into the category of errors and misquotes.

 I still have questions and so do others in the SAAC registry and concours Shelby community. Hopefully more new evidence will be dug up to answer the many questions one way or the other.

As I stated above (not Brian) what more evidence does one need . It is what is, the only 1967 Shelby convertible ever made.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 11, 2019, 10:16:01 AM
I restate the following :

What stronger case than material evidence, you have the vehicle. It has not been destroyed, lost then found, reconstructed or rematerialized from thin air. Has its original sheet metal and Shelby vin tag.  Whereabouts have been known for years and can be traced.  The only set back this vehicle has had was the reported theft . This clearly explains how it was transformed from a 1967 to a 1968 as they took the liberty to upgrade to next years model by ordering the 1968 parts. Fast forward to today, it is registered legally as a 1967 Shelby convertible.

And will add this : Hypothetically, if this was your 1967 Shelby Convertible would you take the same stance ?



b, my initial post was not directed specifically to you, but rather to everyone reading to keep it civil. Yes you did state it was a serialized 1967 Shelby convertible. The one point I wanted to make was that the 1967 Shelby convertible was clearly intended for production as the June 1966 memo letter stated. A few weeks later Shelby American ordered the three sister 67 GT500s (#0100, #0131 & #0139) in each body style. As an appearance evaluation model they would seem appropriate. Testing the 428 motor would give them dual purpose, something I would expect from SA. There would not be a need for multiple convertibles since it was planned as a later spring launched model. I just can’t justify those cars (#0131 and #0139) sitting around for 4-5 months as knockdown units, knowing they were the first of each body style with future production intentions. The multiple package codes created for each body style supports that thought. It would certainly be nice to see photos of any of these 3 sister cars on arrival or sitting on the lot in their knockdown form. Car #0100 which was the first production GT500 fastback has the fortune of being photographed by numerous media outlets. There are no signs of the other two sister cars since the focus was getting the fastback completed and marketed to the public ASAP. There are no photos at LAX in the build phase or engineering development phase on any of the 3 sister cars. Yes, I believe Dave Freidman did leave Shelby American at the end of 1965, but still there are no photos of the 4 ’66 GT350 convertibles despite the future intentions. Freidman might be the person who took photos of the last prototypes built in late ’65 (the ‘66 vinyl roof car and the ’66 supercharged car). After that, prototypes photos from SA are nowhere to be found. Maybe I am missing something, but what other obscure prototypes were there from late ‘65 onward from LAX?

Certainly any vintage photo of (#0131 or #0139) getting built, driven, or tested would limit all of these discussions. I disagree that CS & others were unusually silent specifically about #0139. I recall most of CS interviews focused on the racing teams or how he helped Ford build a performance version of the “Secretary Mustang”. There was a video interview where he discussed the 1967 convertible. It’ s been quite a few years since I’ve seen it, but I recall him mention it was loaned to someone and stolen from their apartment building. That would indicate the car was completed and drivable prior to the ’68 fiberglass installation. The insurance papers filed afterward conveniently detail all the needed parts for the ’68 transformation. Another interview with Fred Goodell mentioned the same story in more detail. Fred notes it was parked overnight at the apartment when stolen. It was stripped very clean and rebuilt after the theft. Another clear indication it was a completed car prior to this incident.

I agree adding #0001 to this conversation is not productive. It comes across vindictive. The MM article is an older issue with some misinformation, it happens. Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.

I’m glad Brian built #0139 originally in the ’68 fiberglass as the media / marketed introduction to the ’68 styling. The photos of it with the serialized 1967 fastback #0463 also in the ’68 fiberglass were neat to see paired together for that past point in history. His additional effort and expensive to re-restore it after he found the additional documents was surprising. He didn’t follow the easy path and he must have known some of the resistance he was going to face. I think the car restored in the earliest completed version was the right choice.
I hate playing devils advocate on this subject because I only want to get at the truth but your example of the memos could be explained as the project was scheduled like early memos indicate but the logistics and mid year introduction wouldn't make sense so the next model year was deemed to be the target introduction which from the evidence or lack of the program from happening could be the case. The project was still born . A similar example is the 1970 Boss 302 Shelby for example. 50 were planned as 70 models , one chassis was ordered and built but it never got completed with fiberglass. It sat around unfinished. This is a known example that "could be" comparable to the convertible not getting completed. The point is that just as reasonable of a explanation can explain the circumstantial evidence . I am not advocating dismissing the possibility of it being 67 trim but just saying I think that it is still to soon to jump to that conclusion until more information comes in.  Heck we are surprised to see someone found 131 when it has been thought it had been crushed for decades. That is exciting new information . Maybe something just around the corner will turn up relating to the 139 that will fill in the gaps. I was the one that suggested to Brian that while restoring the car in the 68 prototype trim that he also fit the 67 fiberglass at the same time so that if definitive evidence presented itself in the future he could more easily convert it to 67 trim if he so desired . He decided not to do it at that time . If others choose to jump to conclusion based on the evidence at hand that is their prerogative. I am keeping a open mind for ether point of view until more definitive information fills the gaps which is my prerogative.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 11, 2019, 10:23:44 AM
Dear SAAC members,

You are not in Venezuela, China, Cuba or any other repressed county. Please feel free to voice your opinions.

Richstang thank you for clarifying Mr Styles relationship with me.

Also to clarify, I have never met Mr Richstang either.

Thank you

Qouted from Richstang

Certainly the Shelby community is continuing to find new details about the entire story of 1967 model year. After my post last night two SAAC members emailed me. They also believe #0139 was completed in 1967 styling, but are fearful of posting for fear of repercussions from the SAAC concours community. One person was very intent of the documents as more than just circumstantial. It is sad our fellow enthusiasts are hesitant to post their viewpoints for fear of backlash. This morning Brian emailed me indicating he does NOT know Tony, but is thankful for his support and also for my post. It’s his choice not to join back up on the forum.


Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Bob Gaines on February 11, 2019, 10:58:44 AM
Tony ,you have done a very good job of showing everyone on the forum the stuff you are made of. We can agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: FL SAAC TONY on February 11, 2019, 11:08:37 AM
Mr Gaines,

You sir have also done an excellent job of showing everyone on this forum and also outside this forum the stuff that you are made off also.

No I cannot agree, it stands as the one and only 1967 Shelby convertible ever made and registered as such.

Regards

Tony ,you have done a very good job of showing everyone on the forum the stuff you are made of. We can agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
Post by: Forum Guide on February 11, 2019, 11:11:58 AM
umm.. what the hell happened to the Fuel Pump topic?

All to your respective corners and cool off.

Thanks
Forum Guide