SAAC Forum

Quote from: crossboss on December 15, 2023, 05:08:14 PM
Boys,
Disagree all you want, Its all about the numbers. The VIN clearly says "G" AND "48".

I agree 100% - the intent of the production was clear, the fact it was never completed is irrelevant.

Quote from: MikeljGT500HE on December 12, 2023, 08:55:08 PM
I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of my opinion dude, and I feel the same about you, so we are even. Get over it or get used to it, I don't give a shit.

I am very impressed with your bio corvetteman, please tell us more about yourself and your opinions.

Quote from: MikeljGT500HE on December 12, 2023, 05:24:04 PM
I am not the experts you guys are, but I would not have paid that much for the car, given the issues that were pretty clear to see.  The engine was just too much for me to accept, too many stories to spin to make that one fly.

Why do we care what you would want to pay for a car ? I am not trying to be rude, I am just interested in why you would think we are interested.

Looks like an nos gas cap?

Based on that photo they must have been running that car at least into 1969.

Just a word of warning, comp cams used to be 4 degrees advanced when installed straight up, now they are 4 degrees retarded straight up - make sure you degree the cam!

I would encourage the owner to NOT restore the car, what an amazing find filled with history! Once restored all that will be lost.

Here is my "christine" I did this one in 2012, I drive it a lot.

Quote from: daltondavid on November 04, 2023, 12:33:15 PM
Given the fact that the owner has discussed in his video about "Returning the dragster to it's former glory as an original Factory Paxton car!" and that "They have solved the mystery about this car" leads one to believe that is his full intentions. I also wonder why he himself has never contacted SAAC about the car? I think that is part of what bothers me about the whole matter. he knew what the response would be. so instead, he ran to the 67 research gang for their Blessing. in exchange for some You Tube exposure, they took the bait, hook, line and sinker. in doing so they have put their credibility in to serious question. the owner is playing it safe as he can always claim "They told me it was this car with this Shelby number and these options!" and the 67 Research group is left holding the flaming bag of Dog shit while he rubs Petroleum Primate after shave on his rosy cheeks hoping it covers up the stench created by the burning bag of shit he lit up.

I agree 100% - How did you like them trying to claim that other "customized" 67 Shelby sporting a bunch of later mustang parts "must have been done at the factory" because the car was the first 67, basically your point about a loss of credibility is just spot on.

P.S. The sad part is Dennis Collins has great taste is cars and is entertaining and knowledgeable, why he chooses to participate in this idiotic escapade is beyond me.

Randy was always willing to help and he knew it all; he will be missed.

Yes, many were put on poorly.

The trick is to make sure the rear marker light is square in the center of the stripe. Also make sure you do not angle the strip up towards the front as you apply it - common mistake. There is no way to measure it for height, so get some pin stripe and once you get the back of the stripe on and square with the marker light - run the pin stripe as a guide to get a top line that looks straight - then apply the stripe. you will need lots of soapy water in a spray bottle and do not apply it in direct sunlight.   

Quote from: Bob Gaines on September 05, 2023, 11:41:33 PM

Quote from: 427hunter on September 05, 2023, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on September 05, 2023, 11:28:38 PM

Quote from: 427hunter on September 05, 2023, 10:00:57 PM
Oh, I thought you were aware of the differences in the 66 owners manual with the later reprint. The quickest tells are in reprinting of the illustration in the middle of the manual. The interior paragraph had a hole punch from being in a binder and the word "optional" had some of the letters missing in the reprinting, in the original manual the whole word "optional" (not bolded) appears. Also the fold through the illustration of the gt350 in the middle of the manual is through the gt350 on the stripe on the reprinting, where the 1st printing original manual the fold if ahead of the gt350. Also in the reprinting the cobra pan lettering in the illustration is not clear like the 1st printing. As far as I know the second printing was produced after 1966.



P.S. the ebay manual that just sold is not an original but a reprint - albeit an early reprint.

I don't think I deserve a snarky come back . At least that is the way it comes across in print. Yes I know the various differences . I just didn't understand because of the way you phrased it and given I am proficient authenticating original 65-70 Shelby manuals I thought you were referring to a 65 fold out page when you said fold and not a more accurate center fold picture. The later print alternative factory replacement manual shows the blank round hole punch circles. The repros on the other hand try to fill the holes with letters that are out of character with the other fonts. The ebay auction example is a alternative or replacement factory produced manual that was used in case the one put in the car at SA didn't get put in the glove box , it was misplaced or stolen. This could have been replaced by the dealer before being sold to the first owner. It is still a vintage original (although in poor condition in that case) and if in better condition would not be a deduction in concours given it is conceivable that it could have been replaced at the dealer. FYI there is yet another even later alternative factory manual that has a blueish cover that is even more primitive looking , think making a copy of a copy. 66-70 all had various alternative factory replacement owners manuals . 65 is the only year Shelby that has just one version of owners manual and not even the entire 65 GT350 production got manuals from SA . With all that said the point is I was pointing out it is a original manual but it is not a first printing manual  and I never inferred it was.  If you think the Ebay example is not original Shelby you are misinformed.

Not trying to be snarky Bob, I thought you were unaware nothing more then that. The ebay manual is not original (as new) it's an early reprint that's what I said.

Ok I am relieved to know it wasn't meant snarky. I agree that it is a early reprint but as I explained it is a factory reprint and not a repro. Also although different then what Shelby put in the car it was a factory authorized replacement and could have conceivably found its way in a car prior to a dealer selling to the first customer .

I have always been appricative/respectful of your knowledge.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on September 05, 2023, 11:28:38 PM

Quote from: 427hunter on September 05, 2023, 10:00:57 PM
Oh, I thought you were aware of the differences in the 66 owners manual with the later reprint. The quickest tells are in reprinting of the illustration in the middle of the manual. The interior paragraph had a hole punch from being in a binder and the word "optional" had some of the letters missing in the reprinting, in the original manual the whole word "optional" (not bolded) appears. Also the fold through the illustration of the gt350 in the middle of the manual is through the gt350 on the stripe on the reprinting, where the 1st printing original manual the fold if ahead of the gt350. Also in the reprinting the cobra pan lettering in the illustration is not clear like the 1st printing. As far as I know the second printing was produced after 1966.



P.S. the ebay manual that just sold is not an original but a reprint - albeit an early reprint.

I don't think I deserve a snarky come back . At least that is the way it comes across in print. Yes I know the various differences . I just didn't understand because of the way you phrased it and given I am proficient authenticating original 65-70 Shelby manuals I thought you were referring to a 65 fold out page when you said fold and not a more accurate center fold picture. The later print alternative factory replacement manual shows the blank round hole punch circles. The repros on the other hand try to fill the holes with letters that are out of character with the other fonts. The ebay auction example is a alternative or replacement factory produced manual that was used in case the one put in the car at SA didn't get put in the glove box , it was misplaced or stolen. This could have been replaced by the dealer before being sold to the first owner. It is still a vintage original (although in poor condition in that case) and if in better condition would not be a deduction in concours given it is conceivable that it could have been replaced at the dealer. FYI there is yet another even later alternative factory manual that has a blueish cover that is even more primitive looking , think making a copy of a copy. 66-70 all had various alternative factory replacement owners manuals . 65 is the only year Shelby that has just one version of owners manual and not even the entire 65 GT350 production got manuals from SA . With all that said the point is I was pointing out it is a original manual but it is not a first printing manual  and I never inferred it was.  If you think the Ebay example is not original Shelby you are misinformed.

Not trying to be snarky Bob, I thought you were unaware nothing more then that. The ebay manual is not original (as new in glovebox) it's an early reprint that's what I said.

P.S. I have always been appricative/respectful of your knowledge.

Oh, I thought you were aware of the differences in the 66 owners manual with the later reprint. The quickest tells are in reprinting of the illustration in the middle of the manual. The interior paragraph had a hole punch from being in a binder and the word "optional" had some of the letters missing in the reprinting, in the original manual the whole word "optional" (not bolded) appears. Also the fold through the illustration of the gt350 in the middle of the manual is through the gt350 on the stripe on the reprinting, where the 1st printing original manual the fold if ahead of the gt350. Also in the reprinting the cobra pan lettering in the illustration is not clear like the 1st printing. As far as I know the second printing was produced after 1966.



P.S. the ebay manual that just sold is not an original but a reprint - albeit an early reprint.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on September 05, 2023, 05:35:56 PM
It looks to be a original although poor condition and not a first printing.

Bob, as I understand it the "2nd printing" is post 1966 - only the first printing with the correct fold and non bolded "optional" were original to the cars correct?