SAAC Forum

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 07, 2020, 02:33:29 PM

Quote from: Wedgeman on April 07, 2020, 01:34:58 PM

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

Bob,

When I first saw this reply from you I wondered what the 1967 cars were doing in this discussion. Thanks for explaining that.

Three quick points before I get to the topic at hand.

One. Your suggestion that I’m making this discussion “confrontational” is neither accurate nor helpful. I saw something you posted that I disagreed with. I presented my opinion and followed that up with some evidence to support my position. Then I cordially invited you to respond with the information you have that might prove me wrong so that I could learn something new. If that’s what you consider “confrontational” then so be it. You call it confrontational; I call it an opportunity for learning. For me, that’s one of the greatest functions of this forum – to share information and opinions in a public setting – inviting anyone with input to join in the discussion. All in the hope of learning something new.

Two. I don’t “allege” anything. I have more evidence. I shared it with Jeff Speegle a few days ago in order to get his input on it. I’m awaiting his reply before posting publicly because it touches on an area that he is an expert in. Your use of the word “allege” implies that I’m not being honest with this forum with my mention of more evidence. That’s what I call confrontational. But I will give you credit for the subtlety of your method.

Three. Because I thought this would be easier to discuss out of the public eye, I sent you my complete research file on this topic over a year ago (via email) and invited your comments and opinion. You replied that you didn’t have the time right then because you were remodeling your house (or something like that). I understood and patiently waited for you to get time to reply. During that waiting period, I followed up on several occasions and sent you updated versions of my research file; still requesting your input. It’s over a year later and you still haven’t had the time. Nothing personal, but emailing you on this topic has not yielded very good results. It took my public posts in this forum to engage you in this discussion, and I’m going to stick with what works for now. Perhaps sometime in the future I’ll try the email thing again.

Now that those distractions are (hopefully) out of the way, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

All my posts have made it clear that my focus is on the 1965-66 cars. In particular 1966. I’m presenting evidence that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. Your posts, both here and in other topics, have lead me to believe that you don’t agree with me on that.

If you think my conclusion is wrong, please post the information you have that would override what I’ve presented. I’m ready to learn.

Just in case that wasn’t clear (we seem to have a communication problem), let me phrase that another way. In “pinning down the timeline,” do you have any evidence that having Ford install the Shelby engine components happened during the production of the 1966 cars? If so, please share that.

Thanks,
Steve

Thank you.  Yours?

Okay, who is the SAAC member that provided his car for this event?  There is a SAAC sticker on the driver front quarter window:

https://www.motor1.com/news/408919/shelby-gt350-combine-harvester-drag-race-video/

And the Shelby VIN?

 

Back on topic...

For those that haven't seen it, here's the video text (translated from French) from the FB post Wedgeman found:

"Carroll Shelby - Behind the scenes of the feat The period allowing me to explore the hidden corners of my hard disks, I propose tonight an interview with Carroll Shelby, aired on June 16, 1966, Thursday before the 24 pm, as part of the show "Behind the scenes of the feat". Well, starting in, it starts wrong with two spelling errors in Texas's name, but the rest is much nicer. We start with views of the Shelby plant parking lot at LAX where the Mustang GT350, that look black, so maybe of in finish. Then Carroll Shelby arrives in Cobra 289 and invites us into his office to tell us about his career. Next are images of the Mustang GT350, assembly line and the competition service, probably just after the 24 hours of Daytona 1966, as we see the winning MK II at the hands Ken Miles and Lloyd Ruby, P/1015, on a set and that other cars seem to be dismantling. The spider X-1 is also seen in the process of being assembled and the 7 litres test and break-in benches. Then follow pictures of a Shelby advertising film shot in Riverside where you see a GT40 (GT/105?), a GT350 with it, looks like Bob Bondurant at his wheel, and Ken Miles, filmed in the counter diving, literally having fun at the wheel of a Cobra. Beautiful images of the 24 Hours of Daytona 1966 take over and the report is already talking about the brake problems of the MkII. With respect to the images of the 12 Hours of Sebring, and because the report was probably closed in front, it dates back to the 1965 edition, the victory of the Chaparral 2 A of Jim Hall and Superbowl Sharp, and we present the footage of the second GT40, Ken Miles and Bruce McLaren on GT / 103 as the winners. After a very diplomatic speech by Caroll Shelby about Ford's chances of winning at Le Mans 1966, very rare images of the April 1966 Trials are presented. Carroll Shelby is dressed in black, probably to pay tribute to Walt Hansgen who killed himself the day before at the wheel of P/1011, crushing at the end of the Dunlop escape. Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart, present on behalf of Alan Mann, Ken Miles driving P/1012 and very rare footage and sound recording of J-1. Otherwise, take care of yourself and your loved ones in this difficult time."

If the comment regarding the GT350 production line is accurate and just after the 66 Daytona, I believe that would put it in very late Feb or early March 1966.

Quote from: KDunne on April 08, 2020, 12:06:46 PM

I've had a great luck with a product called Spray Nine.  It is produced in a Marine formula and non Marine formulas.  I've used both

curious what is the difference between marine and non marine formula? I haven't come across a product labeled that way but I am not into boats like I am cars.

Bob usually found in a place like West Marine, i believe it has some mold fight chemicals.  I use it on my boat, which has an all white interior.  It sparkles after its done