French 1966 Carroll Shelby Interview

[6s2020]

So, getting back to the film,

First off , staged or not staged ?

Of course it is "Staged" , "Scripted" and "Directed" ... it's a short film, does not mean it was not real, true and factual.

I mean, the camera crew did not just lob on to the line and start filming.

If we are to believe that the engine parts were already fitted at ford at the time i think it is a stretch to believe they switched out the Cobra oil pan for a stock one (messy job) and not show fitting the cobra one in the film.

Plus the presence of chrome rocker covers, let alone the fact it would have made just as good copy to show exchanging those for the Cobra ones(much easier)

Also those two line workers look like they have placed an inlet manifold down in an engine bay a thousand times before 

Just my thoughts and observations of the film.

In this context the word staged means doing something that is not typical is done on camera for effect. Now as far as this film is concerned if the events are not dramatically staged and the films reflects real in place procedures done during that window in time then at the very least it was during one of the interruption periods of Ford Shelbized engines like has been established were done before and after the time period depicted.

That's one way to see it.

By Staged in this film i meant ... Ready go," Oh could you do that again, the lighting was not right... could you do that again, without looking at the camera, .....again without dropping your spanner."  Real work but staged, that's all i was getting at.

So if the film is only conclusive for that moment for 66s then do you consider the two 67 photos you shared to be conclusive for just those periods in time and not before and after each photo?  This is a question not a wise a$$ comment.

[Bob Gaines]

So, getting back to the film,

First off , staged or not staged ?

Of course it is "Staged" , "Scripted" and "Directed" ... it's a short film, does not mean it was not real, true and factual.

I mean, the camera crew did not just lob on to the line and start filming.

If we are to believe that the engine parts were already fitted at ford at the time i think it is a stretch to believe they switched out the Cobra oil pan for a stock one (messy job) and not show fitting the cobra one in the film.

Plus the presence of chrome rocker covers, let alone the fact it would have made just as good copy to show exchanging those for the Cobra ones(much easier)

Also those two line workers look like they have placed an inlet manifold down in an engine bay a thousand times before 

Just my thoughts and observations of the film.

In this context the word staged means doing something that is not typical is done on camera for effect. Now as far as this film is concerned if the events are not dramatically staged and the films reflects real in place procedures done during that window in time then at the very least it was during one of the interruption periods of Ford Shelbized engines like has been established were done before and after the time period depicted.

That's one way to see it.

By Staged in this film i meant ... Ready go," Oh could you do that again, the lighting was not right... could you do that again, without looking at the camera, .....again without dropping your spanner."  Real work but staged, that's all i was getting at.

So if the film is only conclusive for that moment for 66s then do you consider the two 67 photos you shared to be conclusive for just those periods in time and not before and after each photo?  This is a question not a wise a$$ comment.

I consider the 67 pictures conclusive to before and after because besides other similar pictures of 67 Shelby's without hoods at the airport there is no conflicting evidence for on again off again engine install issues like has been shown there is for 65 and 66.

[6s2020]

Thank you, for your reply and insight.

[SFM6S087]

Analysis and OPINION Update:

Here is an excerpt from my reply #77 after getting a first look at the documents that Bob & Jeff graciously posted and put into perspective with detailed explanations.

*****

-   The case looks solid that Ford installed the intakes on some of the 1965 cars. Then Shelby American did that on the carryovers. Then Ford did that on the 1967 cars and later.

-   The case is pretty good, but requires a few assumptions, that Ford installed the intakes on some of the full spec 1966 cars.

*****

I have since consulted with another expert on this topic – who wishes to remain anonymous – and who has access to documents that I don't. With input from that person I'm slightly modifying my analysis to this...

--------------------

-   A few documents indicate the possibility that Ford installed the Cobra intakes on some of the 1965 GT350's.

-   All current evidence indicates the carryovers received their Cobra intakes at Shelby American.

-   A few documents indicate the possibility that Ford may have installed the Cobra intakes on some of the full spec 1966 cars. But getting to that requires a number of assumptions. And when assumptions are needed to get to a possibility, then the case is a little thin.

-   The little evidence I'm aware of indicates Ford installed the Cobra intakes on the 1967 cars.

--------------------

The slight change in tone and content (from my original post to the one above) is primarily because I was reminded that many things were written on paper, but didn't actually happen. Sometimes orders had supplements and then change notices and who knows what else; and then Ford still might not deliver what was written on paper. The engine request on DSO 71-2510 that was denied by Ford is one example of many. Sorry I can't share some of the other examples. My source will not allow them in public. The point is that my first analysis on this gave too much credibility to the most recent paperwork shared in this topic; without enough consideration to the very real prospect that the things written and implied may not have actually resulted in Ford installing Cobra intakes on the cars mentioned.

One of the most convincing documents presented is the staff meeting note dated May 4, 1965 that indicates a delay in Ford completing engines because of defects in the aluminum intakes. This proves that Ford at least attempted to install those intakes. The document implies Ford was waiting for replacements for the defects, but what if that took too long? Ford may have eventually shipped those engines with the standard Ford intakes. And that bad experience may have deterred Ford from trying that again. That would explain why the request on DSO 71-2510 was denied, and why Shelby American is installing the intakes in the video that started this thread. Burce Junor says Ford tried installing the Cobra intakes, but the work went back to Shelby American. And the paperwork we have so far seems to support that. We have evidence of Ford "trying" to install the Cobra intakes. And that is followed up with evidence of Shelby American actually "installing" Cobra intakes.

My personal OPINION is that Shelby American installed the Cobra intakes on all the 1965-66 cars - except the few with black painted intakes. I think it has been proven that there is a "possibility" that Ford installed some of the other 65-66 Cobra intakes. We know that was attempted. But I don't think it's been proven to have actually happened.

The common belief for over 50 years has been that Shelby American installed all the 1965-66 Cobra intakes (except the few that were painted black). And I have the words of 3 people who were there at the time who say that's what happened. I think the extraordinary claim that Ford installed any of the 65-66 Cobra intakes (beyond the handful with black paint) requires extraordinary proof. And I'll admit that we're close with what's been presented in this thread, but not quite there yet. At least not for me. We've proven the possibility, but not the actual occurrence of Ford installing any of those intakes. Just my OPINION. And I invite others to express theirs.

I know this may stand in conflict with some real experts (I'm not one), but this is my considered opinion with the evidence that I have access to. I'm okay with anyone who disagrees, and I'm always excited to see new evidence and learn new things.

Finally, a sincere apology to the forum community for being vague about my other source and the documents I have recently been allowed some information about. That person does not want to be involved in forum discussions like this because of the nasty turn they sometimes take. And I can't blame him. I think this one has been relatively civil, but you just never know when one person will not be happy to simply exchange evidence and opinions and then agree to disagree on the conclusions.

Steve

[JD]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

[SFM6S087]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

JD, you are very welcome. I'm pleased that you find this information useful. Just be sure to keep the evidence and the opinions in this thread separate. You may view the exact same evidence and come to a different conclusion. And if so, your conclusion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's.

The one obvious exception is concours judging. If your friend is restoring his car for concours competition then you must build the car to the standards of the concours judges (whether you agree with them or not) if you want to score high. I'm guessing you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in for others who may be reading this. I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

JD, you are very welcome. I'm pleased that you find this information useful. Just be sure to keep the evidence and the opinions in this thread separate. You may view the exact same evidence and come to a different conclusion. And if so, your conclusion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's.

The one obvious exception is concours judging. If your friend is restoring his car for concours competition then you must build the car to the standards of the concours judges (whether you agree with them or not) if you want to score high. I'm guessing you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in for others who may be reading this. I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions.

Steve

Steve, you seemed concerned about someone losing points if entering a car in concours over a "think for yourself" conclusion as it pertains to information in this thread . I am not aware of any of the Mustang/Shelby venues that deduct points for philosophy . The venues deduct points for lack of historical context appearance. Regardless of where the cars had the engine parts installed the end result of how they looked after appears to be identical. With that said what conclusion that would have a effect on the appearance of how someone prepares a 65 or 66 GT350 for concours are you concerned about ?

[Cobra66]

Was the mounting hardware not reused to mount the cobra intakes to the block? If so, why would the bolts be painted blue (1966) if Ford installed the cobra intakes? Was the factory intake originally installed to paint the engine, then removed to install the cobra intake? What was the painting process for the engines?

[J_Speegle]

Was the mounting hardware not reused to mount the cobra intakes to the block? If so, why would the bolts be painted blue (1966) if Ford installed the cobra intakes? Was the factory intake originally installed to paint the engine, then removed to install the cobra intake? What was the painting process for the engines?

Ford built the engines as "normal" K codes then routed some to be Shelby engines since there was no internal differences between the two. After running on the test cradles it's believed that it is at that point when the engines were converted. Guess the reuse of the bolts would be seen as a cost saving point which was very important to any company. Sort of the same reason Shelby reused bolts and hardware where they could

[SFM6S087]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

JD, you are very welcome. I'm pleased that you find this information useful. Just be sure to keep the evidence and the opinions in this thread separate. You may view the exact same evidence and come to a different conclusion. And if so, your conclusion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's.

The one obvious exception is concours judging. If your friend is restoring his car for concours competition then you must build the car to the standards of the concours judges (whether you agree with them or not) if you want to score high. I'm guessing you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in for others who may be reading this. I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions.

Steve

Steve, you seemed concerned about someone losing points if entering a car in concours over a "think for yourself" conclusion as it pertains to information in this thread . I am not aware of any of the Mustang/Shelby venues that deduct points for philosophy . The venues deduct points for lack of historical context appearance. Regardless of where the cars had the engine parts installed the end result of how they looked after appears to be identical. With that said what conclusion that would have a effect on the appearance of how someone prepares a 65 or 66 GT350 for concours are you concerned about ?

Bob, there appears to be a misunderstanding. No matter how carefully I word my replies, there always seems to be room for misinterpretation. My friends can tell you that I often spend hours or even days trying to get the wording of a comment exactly right before posting - just to try to prevent situations like this. Seems I'm not very successful despite all my efforts. I'll try harder next time. Heck, I'll try harder this time. I will do my very best to answer your question in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

Now to answer your question:

I did not mean that philosophy was a judging criterion. I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe that was supposed to be clever in some way and I'm just not sophisticated enough to get it. Whatever. I meant that you should not let your personal beliefs and opinions cause you to do something to your car that will cost you points in judging - if your goal is to compete in concours.

In the early sentences of my reply to JD I found myself encouraging him (and indirectly anyone else reading this thread) to think for himself and make his own conclusions. Something that I believe we both agree on. Then it dawned on me that JD had mentioned what I posted could be relevant to the restoration of his friends car. So I was concerned that my encouragement to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions might steer them wrong if they are restoring for concours. Hence, I added the second paragraph for the exact reason stated in the final sentence. "I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions." Even now, after careful reconsideration, I can't think of a more precise way to phrase that.

As to how the appearance of a 65-66 engine would differ depending on information in this thread. - My particular concern was the heads on the intake bolts. I don't have a good enough knowledge of the Ford engine building process to know if the intake bold heads might have avoided being painted if Ford installed the aluminum intakes. And packaged into my reply was the thought that there may or may not be other differences that I was simply unaware of. Better to just advise to build to the judges' standards if restoring for concours. (Note: It looks like Jeff addressed the bolt head issue as I was composing this answer. Thanks, Jeff.)

In short, I was trying to give some good general advice while keeping in mind the limitations of my own knowledge. Limitations that I'm trying to correct with threads like this and help from people like you.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

Was the mounting hardware not reused to mount the cobra intakes to the block? If so, why would the bolts be painted blue (1966) if Ford installed the cobra intakes? Was the factory intake originally installed to paint the engine, then removed to install the cobra intake? What was the painting process for the engines?

When SA added the engine parts like intakes the procedure happened something like this .Drained some of the coolant SA, unbolted the thermostat housing and bent back the housing and bypass hose assembly . The intake heater hose fitting was sometimes reused and other times replaced with new. Maybe the heater hose fitting would get too marred up sometimes requiring new. The intake bolts and then cast iron intake was removed. New intake gaskets and thermostat gaskets were replaced , unpainted aluminum intake installed and heater hose fitting installed. The intake and thermostat bolts were reused. FYI the bolts were replaced randomly so the ones in the front that would have had the shaft painted may end up inboard and the unpainted shaft inboard bolts were used on the ends . Perfect paint on the bolts did not happen. When Ford did the first batch of engines that were Shelbyized at Ford had black painted intakes (65 models) .  The intake painted was not acceptable. SA did the conversions for a while again until Ford got the unpainted intake install  figured out. For what ever reason Ford found that it was best for them to follow the same procedure as Shelby did instead of installing the aluminum intake from the beginning and masking . This same intake install procedure can be confirmed on 67 GT350 ,68 GT350 and 69/70 GT350.

[Tired Sheep]

Im not familiar with Ford installing 1968 GT350 aluminum intakes 🙄

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

JD, you are very welcome. I'm pleased that you find this information useful. Just be sure to keep the evidence and the opinions in this thread separate. You may view the exact same evidence and come to a different conclusion. And if so, your conclusion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's.

The one obvious exception is concours judging. If your friend is restoring his car for concours competition then you must build the car to the standards of the concours judges (whether you agree with them or not) if you want to score high. I'm guessing you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in for others who may be reading this. I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions.

Steve

Steve, you seemed concerned about someone losing points if entering a car in concours over a "think for yourself" conclusion as it pertains to information in this thread . I am not aware of any of the Mustang/Shelby venues that deduct points for philosophy . The venues deduct points for lack of historical context appearance. Regardless of where the cars had the engine parts installed the end result of how they looked after appears to be identical. With that said what conclusion that would have a effect on the appearance of how someone prepares a 65 or 66 GT350 for concours are you concerned about ?

Bob, there appears to be a misunderstanding. No matter how carefully I word my replies, there always seems to be room for misinterpretation. My friends can tell you that I often spend hours or even days trying to get the wording of a comment exactly right before posting - just to try to prevent situations like this. Seems I'm not very successful despite all my efforts. I'll try harder next time. Heck, I'll try harder this time. I will do my very best to answer your question in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

Now to answer your question:

I did not mean that philosophy was a judging criterion. I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe that was supposed to be clever in some way and I'm just not sophisticated enough to get it. Whatever. I meant that you should not let your personal beliefs and opinions cause you to do something to your car that will cost you points in judging - if your goal is to compete in concours.

In the early sentences of my reply to JD I found myself encouraging him (and indirectly anyone else reading this thread) to think for himself and make his own conclusions. Something that I believe we both agree on. Then it dawned on me that JD had mentioned what I posted could be relevant to the restoration of his friends car. So I was concerned that my encouragement to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions might steer them wrong if they are restoring for concours. Hence, I added the second paragraph for the exact reason stated in the final sentence. "I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions." Even now, after careful reconsideration, I can't think of a more precise way to phrase that.

As to how the appearance of a 65-66 engine would differ depending on information in this thread. - My particular concern was the heads on the intake bolts. I don't have a good enough knowledge of the Ford engine building process to know if the intake bold heads might have avoided being painted if Ford installed the aluminum intakes. And packaged into my reply was the thought that there may or may not be other differences that I was simply unaware of. Better to just advise to build to the judges' standards if restoring for concours. (Note: It looks like Jeff addressed the bolt head issue as I was composing this answer. Thanks, Jeff.)

In short, I was trying to give some good general advice while keeping in mind the limitations of my own knowledge. Limitations that I'm trying to correct with threads like this and help from people like you.

Steve

Steve , you words showed concern about deduction of points in concours based on your previous comments which it is reasonable to assume are the ones in the context of your discussion over who did the parts install of this thread.  I did not understand why you wanted to make that kind of statement "I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions" given there is no difference on how the engine appears regardless of who did the engine parts install . Your concern didn't make any sense to me and consequently seemed a little dramatic because I assumed you knew better.  I now read that you were not aware that the installs were the same . Hopefully now that you have a better understanding of the process you will not have to be concerned with anyone losing "concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions". At least like I qualified in my previous post in the context of the discussion on this thread.   

[Bob Gaines]

Im not familiar with Ford installing 1968 GT350 aluminum intakes 🙄

I would suggest starting another thread to discuss the subject. 

[Cobra66]

Thank you for the clarification on the intake manifold bolts. I wasn't sure that when Ford was installing the cobra intake that the motor was completely built, painted and tested with Ford's intake. Then partially taken apart, and the cobra intake, carb, and oil pan installed.
I thought there maybe a way to differentiate between Ford installing them, and SA. Seems like Ford duplicated their work. Instead of just picking an allotment of engines, and building them with the SA specific items, then testing.