Author Topic: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference  (Read 2606 times)

Bob Gaines

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2623
  • Original Posts:14706
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #30 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.   
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 12:12:27 AM by Bob Gaines »
Bob Gaines,Shelby Enthusiast, Shelby Collector , Shelby Concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

KerryBWhite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #31 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

Coralsnake

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1853
  • Original Posts: 10,264
    • View Profile
    • theCoralsnake.com
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #32 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.

Shelby researcher, theCoralsnake.com webmaster, the official Conelec Public Information Officer

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #33 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.
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #34 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
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #35 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
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

Bob Gaines

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2623
  • Original Posts:14706
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #36 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.
Bob Gaines,Shelby Enthusiast, Shelby Collector , Shelby Concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Richstang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #37 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.

KerryBWhite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #38 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 :)

Bob Gaines

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2623
  • Original Posts:14706
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #39 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.
Bob Gaines,Shelby Enthusiast, Shelby Collector , Shelby Concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #40 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.
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #41 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.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 10:38:02 AM by FL SAAC TONY »
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 10:25:55 AM by FL SAAC TONY »
These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

FL SAAC TONY

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • original posts more than McDonalds over 1 billlion
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #43 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.


These cars are meant to be driven, so enjoy the hell out of all of it. Not just the look of it when its all clean. Carroll Shelby

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road

Bob Gaines

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2623
  • Original Posts:14706
    • View Profile
Re: Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference
« Reply #44 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.
Bob Gaines,Shelby Enthusiast, Shelby Collector , Shelby Concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby