SAAC Forum

Agreed on what appears to be a very original car.  Spoke to a very reputable shop yesterday afternoon about the paint.  With respect to the thickness rule, he noted that often times the factory "paint guys" would get lazy/inconsistent in the manner in which they sprayed i.e., not bending down along the bottom half of the car, rushing thru the process etc.  Easy enough to understand and, while he does agree with the common sense rule that the top paint should be thinner than the sides, his point makes an accurate determination all but impossible-that is unless the seller can prove otherwise.  And this seller has not done that as far he could tell from the documents and info. provided.  He also questioned the paint quality/consistency around the driver side door plate-he felt the area had been "scratched/rubbed" to the point where a different shade of blue was visible.  A better/higher resolution picture of that area would help answer that question.  Anyway, without the benefit of a thorough on sight inspection and/or documentation from the seller and all things being equal, he felt it was not likely the car was "all" original paint which begs the question-why would an extremely low mileage car receive paint work... especially one that seems to have been so well cared for.  They also found some incorrect and missing pieces under the hood-nothing major but again, inconsistent with this type of pedigree.  Just their $.02-not mine.  Still a terrific car.

Did I miss it in the description-has the car been restored or is it being listed as a survivor.

Were '69 428 blocks date coded or otherwise identified with a casting number that was specific to that car.  Thx.

One example from a Marti:

47 DSO  Cincinnati DSO (District Sales Office)

Order Type: Company Lease Plan
DSO Item #: 8977
Dealer #: 47223J
            Ford Motor Company
            PO Bx 15004 Cinci District SLS FD
            Cincinnati OH 45215

Car was leased to an individual but I am not sure whether she was a Ford employee.

Nothing contradictory-apparently, I overlooked the post...

Circling back to one of the original questions-have we dispelled the notion that all k codes "had to be" GT's. 

So, 489 seems to be the accepted production number for '67 non Shelby k codes? 

Small number given total '67 (again non Shelby) production-likely making it the rarest "Mustang" on that basis alone-which is definitely where a k code Registry would be a benefit.

Are we thinking that less than 73 exist-again, something a Registry would help refine-up or down.

I have 2 k code Build Sheets in my possession-both in extraordinary condition.  One for a car that passed thru the shop that I use and the other for my own GT/A Coupe. 

While I see that both Build Sheets denote the cars as actual "k codes" (top left of the Sheet), mine does not designate the car as a GT (at least that I can decipher).  However, my Marti notes the car as having the GT Option.  It does not, however, designate Competition Suspension as an option.     

Q- is there some authority suggesting that all '67 k codes had to also be factory GT's.  While I suppose it's possible, I find it unlikely that one could not order what I'll call a "plain jane" k code in any style for '67.   
Q- is there an accepted definition/authority for what constitutes the "Competition Suspension" option and when that designation would have been noted on a '67 k code Marti as an option.   
Q- would a '67 k code Marti note the car as having both the "GT" and "Competition Suspension" options or would it be the case that a factory GT equipped k code would already have the competition suspension installed-rendering it unnecessary to also note it as an optional item. 

My Marti does not mention Competition Suspension as an option.  My understanding, however, is that all '67 GT's ( k code or otherwise) were factory equipped with that option-a point that is referenced in the Mustang Recognition Guide (by Larry Dobbs et al) on page 94 titled "GT Equipment Group":  I'll quote: "The GT Equipment Group was available on any 1967 Mustang equipped with one of the 4 v-8 engines.  For '67 only, automatic versions received a special GT/A designation-for GT Automatic".

Skipping to bullet point 7 as to what constitutes the GT Equipment Group: "Special Handling Package with higher rate springs and shocks, and larger front stabilizer bar". 

Q- is that the definition of the "Competition Suspension" option or not.  And, if it is, wouldn't it be the case that only non-GT equipped cars (if there were such a thing in the k code world of 1967) would have that option noted on the Marti?

Anyway, I had a few minutes tonite...

 

Circling back on this.  The 2013 Registry notes the then known owner and his whereabouts.  Perhaps the Registrar could chime in and if known, share any current information/updates so that we put this matter to rest in advance of the new Registry and w/o the need for an exhaustive and likely unproductive investigation with the Ok authorities.