SAAC Forum

Anyone seen this before? Posted by Wedgeman on FB but I couldn't find it here. Some of the footage is familiar but I haven't seen the 66 GT350 production part before. Possibly Hertz cars, probably staged, but interesting.

Link and a few stills...

https://www.ina.fr/index.php/contenus-editoriaux/articles-editoriaux/1966-caroll-shelby-de-pilote-de-course-a-ingenieur-automobile

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/236-060420123427.jpeg)

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/236-060420123455.jpeg)

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/236-060420123538.jpeg)

(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/236-060420123607.jpeg)

Dave

Thank you for posting!  I saw in on FB too, but couldn't find a link.   Thank you.  A lot of footage I have never seen.

Thank you !! never saw it !!!

Fantastic stuff!

Nice footage of the J Car at Le Mans.

Thanks!

- Phillip

Factory hanger shots wicked cool

I like the road course track footage and in-car-camera locations....Awesome!!

Is there a version with English captions?   

Interesting how the cars sound in French on the track just like an English version.  No accent. ::)

Is it one hanger for race cars and one for production cars?

Quote from: Coralsnake on April 06, 2020, 07:06:12 PM
Is it one hanger for race cars and one for production cars?

yes

Cool,thanks!

Any thoughts on whether this is a staged video or a film of actual 66 GT350 production?

If not staged it would suggest the intakes and oil pans still being installed a SAI at that time...

At the 41 second mark of the film where Carroll pulls up to a Black with White side stripe, 10 spoke 66 GT350, that car could be 6S2020 or 6S1750 as they were Shelby Company cars.

In the still shot of OP it does not look Black, but appears to be Black in the film.

Just Cool to think that it could be. 8)

Quote from: s2ms on April 06, 2020, 10:02:09 PM
Any thoughts on whether this is a staged video or a film of actual 66 GT350 production?

If not staged it would suggest the intakes and oil pans still being installed a SAI at that time...

I thought about that too but according to Chuck Cantwell not the case. I think it may have been staged . A possible explanation is wanting to emphasis the extra power by showing how they were adding HP items. The chrome valve covers doesn't help the possible explanation however.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 07, 2020, 12:22:00 AM

Quote from: s2ms on April 06, 2020, 10:02:09 PM
Any thoughts on whether this is a staged video or a film of actual 66 GT350 production?

If not staged it would suggest the intakes and oil pans still being installed a SAI at that time...

I thought about that too but according to Chuck Cantwell not the case. I think it may have been staged . A possible explanation is wanting to emphasis the extra power by showing how they were adding HP items. The chrome valve covers doesn't help the possible explanation however.

I have an 8 page file of research on that topic. Chuck Cantwell indicated in his book that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least through the end of 1966 production. And he has confirmed that privately. (I'm not going to quote Chuck's private communications in this public setting, but in an email back in January 2019 he was specifically asked about this. He was VERY clear and VERY emphatic in his reply that S.A. installed those engine components – not Ford.) This is backed up by Bruce Junor and some of the line workers who actually did the work, and confirmed by Howard Pardee through his examination of some factory documents that only he has access to. Plus, the known DSO's, the engine tags (what few survived) and the engine decals would also seem to confirm this.

Add this video to all of that and I think the conclusion is clear. Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least through the end of 1966 production.

The best I can tell, S.A. made "plans" to have Ford install the Shelby engine components. Bob has in "Intra-Company Communication" that mentions that. And it appears that they did actually try that out, as evidenced by the few late 65 and early 66 cars with original black painted intakes. But that trial must have proven unsatisfactory and the job stayed with Shelby American; per all the above evidence.

For me, with the evidence I'm aware of, that's conclusive. But I'm open to any new evidence or corrected interpretation of what we already have.

Steve

always learning new things as new material is coming in the light !!!

Chuck told me no on a number of occasions and told you yes. That makes it more confusing then clear IMHO.

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 06, 2020, 10:46:29 PM

At the 41 second mark of the film where Carroll pulls up to a Black with White side stripe, 10 spoke 66 GT350, that car could be 6S2020 or 6S1750 as they were Shelby Company cars.

In the still shot of OP it does not look Black, but appears to be Black in the film.

Just Cool to think that it could be. 8)

Agree the 66 in that shot is either black, or green which can also appear very dark.

Gotta dig that groovy opening tune!

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 07, 2020, 11:34:19 AM
Chuck told me no on a number of occasions and told you yes. That makes it more confusing then clear IMHO.

It's not confusing to me. Even if we discount Chuck's word, all the evidence I've been able to dig up over the past few years indicates that S.A. installed the Shelby engine components, at least through the end of 1966 production. And the video that spawned this thread supports that. Yes, that "could" be staged, but I don't think so. Not when combined with all the other evidence.

I have:

Howard Pardee and his documents
Bruce Junor (production line manager at S.A. back in the day)
Some S.A. line workers
The DSOs
The engine tags & decals
This French video

Even your Intra-Company Communication and the black painted intakes (when put into the time-line of events) support my conclusion.

If you have evidence beyond this please let me know. I'm ready to change my mind if that's where the facts lead.

Steve

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 ....?

Thanks Wedgie for posting the film link originally on FB to get the ball rolling!

The film makes me wonder if any still photos were taken at the same time. They would be better resolution and perhaps even in color.

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.   

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 ....?

Yes I posted an illustrated ad of that. Not sure if it's been since the crash. Will post it again later today.  Believe the date when the ad was placed below was before the period the film was shot during. Posted this before but it may have been before the forum crash

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-170615210112.jpeg)


Believe the reselling to individuals was a pain and not successful as no other ads followed that I'm aware of. Instead (like often happens) the parts were either scrapped or after the conversion of the engine started to take place at Ford there was none of these parts (still had others that were removed from the cars) was not needed

Do I see a ghost image of the pony corral in the grille?

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 ....?

An example from the 65 GT350 website:

(http://1965gt350mustang.com/images/025big.jpg)

Lol, the carburetor alone today would cost you 20X that now ;D

Quote from: s2ms on April 07, 2020, 04:11:29 PM
An example from the 65 GT350 website:

Thanks Dave forgot I had that one also (the Shelby one) Believe both were during 65 production

What kind of plane is next to the hanger when CS pulls up in the Cobra?  Cessna 182?

I've tried to look up the tail #N52450 but all I can find is a 182 built in 1973, so obviously is not this same craft.

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 07, 2020, 07:59:57 PM
Thanks Dave forgot I had that one also (the Shelby one) Believe both were during 65 production

Jeff, never noticed this before but...on the ad you posted the carb is mounted backwards on the intake!

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.

I submit that the only time Ford installed the Shelby engine components was during a short test run. Resulting in the few late 1965 and early 1966 GT350's that received black painted intakes. Bruce Junor has stated that having Ford install those items was tried, but the job went back to Shelby American. Other than that trial run, I can find no evidence that Ford installed the Shelby engine accessories for any of the other 1965-66 cars.

I won't post my entire 8 page file here. But I will attempt a summary.

I have Chuck Cantwell, Howard Pardee (1965-66 Registrar), Bruce Junor (production line manager at SA back in the day), and several SA line workers who actually did the work, who ALL say that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine accessories at least through the end of 1966 production. We can leave Chuck out of this if you wish, since you heard something different from him than I heard. But that still leaves me with several people in a good position to know, who all say SA installed the 1965-1966 engine accessories.

Here's a rough timeline of events & documents that I'm aware of.

•   May 7, 1965 – Ford issues an Intra-Company Communication that has an "example" that shows "plans" to have Ford start installing the aluminum intakes and some rear axle items.
•   June 16, 1965 – SA places DSO 71-2510 requesting that Ford delete the standard 289HP engine (C5ZE-6007-D554J) and add engine C5ZE-6007-SE370. This is almost certainly a 289HP with Shelby accessories already installed. And the "SE" in the part number probably stands for "Shelby Engine."
•   Sometime after June 16, 1965 (exact date unknown) – A document Howard Pardee has shows that Ford denied the request on DSO 71-2510 and instead installed standard 289HP engines into the cars in that order.
•   September 17, 1965 – SA places DSO 71-2601 for the first cars that will be 1966 chassis and built into full specification 1966 GT350s. This order has no mention of deleting the standard 289HP and replacing it with one having Shelby components already installed.
•   Sometime after September 17, 1965 – Howard Pardee indicates that all the DSOs subsequent to DSO 71-2601 have no mention of deleting the standard 289HP and adding one with the Shelby components already installed.
•   Date Unknown – Beyond the DSO's discussed here, Howard Pardee has other documents showing that SA requested that Ford install the Shelby engine accessories, but Ford denied that request.

Now top all that off with the video that started this thread and I think it's a pretty good case for S.A. installing those engine components through the end of 1966.

If you have other evidence PLEASE post it. I honestly want to see it. I'm ready to learn something new.

Steve

This note added on 4/11/20 - In reply #50 I posted pictures of two of the documents mentioned above.

Thanks as always, Steve for the confirmation and information to back it up. 👍🏻

I know it is a long shot, but does anyone on these forums have a good picture of the Willow Springs corner markers shown in the track footage?

I have been searching for a picture that will show the detail of what was on the signs. If anyone can help me find a picture, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dennis

Quote from: Shelby_r_b on April 08, 2020, 08:00:41 AM
Thanks as always, Steve for the confirmation and information to back it up. 👍🏻

You are most welcome. I have other evidence, but presenting it would be even longer and more boring than what I've already posted. I think the point has been made. And the video that started this thread is the icing on the cake. A video of the intakes & carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line. You gotta love that.

As always, I'm open to changing my mind if new information comes to light. But I've seen nothing so far that would make me question the conclusion that S.A. installed the Shelby engine accessories on all the 1965-66 cars, with the exception of the few that ended up with black painted intakes.

Steve

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.

I'm confused as to how Steve's tone is confrontational.  There is an obvious difference in opinion, and Steve has put together a timeline of evidence he has found that supports his point of view.  Where is the confrontation?

I would suggest that all of us are prone to error.  And, in the end, the person with the best information / data (as in the business world) usually carries the most weight. 

To be quite honest, it seems that those who know the most in general tend to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to research / fact - I understand.  However, I have seen many well informed people in my life determine what is correct or not based solely on pedigree; which is not always correct. 

Disagreeing with someone and providing evidence is not confrontation.  My belief is that this forum is all about the sharing of information based on evidence versus pedigree.  And, there is no certified expert for whom should be regarded as the infallible truth until proven other wise.

BTW - you've been very helpful to myself and others, Bob; which I greatly appreciate.  My statement is meant to be broad versus targeted.

Thanks!

Quote from: Shelby_r_b on April 09, 2020, 02:16:56 PM
I'm confused as to how Steve's tone is confrontational.  There is an obvious difference in opinion, and Steve has put together a timeline of evidence he has found that supports his point of view.  Where is the confrontation?

I would suggest that all of us are prone to error.  And, in the end, the person with the best information / data (as in the business world) usually carries the most weight. 

To be quite honest, it seems that those who know the most in general tend to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to research / fact - I understand.  However, I have seen many well informed people in my life determine what is correct or not based solely on pedigree; which is not always correct. 

Disagreeing with someone and providing evidence is not confrontation.  My belief is that this forum is all about the sharing of information based on evidence versus pedigree.  And, there is no certified expert for whom should be regarded as the infallible truth until proven other wise.

BTW - you've been very helpful to myself and others, Bob; which I greatly appreciate.  My statement is meant to be broad versus targeted.

Thanks!

Ruben, my interpretation is just that mine not yours . FYI there have been other discussions that are a relevant context for Steve and my discussion. Thank you for trying to help.

Bob Gaines..Thanks for that first pic of the 67's sitting with their engines showing...I had never seen that one before... ;D  Didn't know that posting that video on FB would start such an interesting discussion.. Thanks to... S2MS..for posting...we all learn things from these posts.  In the pic i was talking about , I noticed there were no Shelby VIN numbers like in the pic of the White GT500 # 231 moving down the assembly line at SA . I am assuming they were not assigned there Shelby VIN #'s yet.?

Quote from: Wedgeman on April 09, 2020, 03:02:09 PM
Bob Gaines..Thanks for that first pic of the 67's sitting with their engines showing...I had never seen that one before... ;D  Didn't know that posting that video on FB would start such an interesting discussion.. Thanks to... S2MS..for posting...we all learn things from these posts.  In the pic i was talking about , I noticed there were no Shelby VIN numbers like in the pic of the White GT500 # 231 moving down the assembly line at SA . I am assuming they were not assigned there Shelby VIN #'s yet.?

That is another interesting discussion of whether Ford in 67 determined which Ford VIN went with what Shelby Vin if if Shelby randomly assigned the Shelby VIN to cars. There is circumstantial evidence for both lines of thought. 

Sorry been distracted with all of the off forum things going on.

One concern I have with what has been presented so far is the mixing together of information, comments and such from different production periods. Believe the film and in turn the thread's focus was on later 66 production given the color of the cars being produced and the details visible in the film. Adding allot of "stuff" from other periods may lead us to make conclusions that are incorrect and muddy the water. As far as the period in the film it appears that we have periods of time before it where SA and Ford installed the items and the period after where Ford did the installation.

Just an opinion with no agenda.

There is no reason to rush to a conclusion - and IMHO sometimes we don't have to have an answer to everything right right at this moment. As the film shows us there are still things out there left undiscovered

(added an additional sentence to explain the point better)

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 09, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

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.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 09, 2020, 05:18:41 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 09, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

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.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

Sorry I'm not going to feed the troll.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 09, 2020, 06:32:37 PM

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 09, 2020, 05:18:41 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 09, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

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.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

Sorry I'm not going to feed the troll.

Wow again, you just proved my point.

Bob, Steve and all:
This is a great and substantive thread. New original material and thoughtful inputs therein. Shades of our original forum!
I think I speak for many here on how much we all benefit from your sharing of your considerable expertise.
Would hate to see this veer off track. Been alot of 'psychobabble' on here lately.
Love talking shop and anything to do with that fabulous SAI history, especially at West Imperial Highway.

My unsolicited two-cents (from my backround): eyewitnesses often time turn out to less than reliable in a thorough investigation-makes it difficult sometimes.

Steve A

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: Bob Gaines on April 09, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

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. And that also explains your "undeniable" comment in reply #20. In the future when you wish to inject 1967 cars into a discussion of 1966 cars you may want to be more clear in your post. For people like me who may not make that connection. And from some of the other replies I've seen, I'm not the only one who didn't understand that you were bringing 1967 cars into this, and why. You've explained it now, but it would have been so much simpler to have mentioned that up front.

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 and 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.

Thanks,
Steve

Scrutinizing the film, I noticed that starting at 2.20 the first intake appears to have a painted water elbow with the nipple bare metal when the hose was removed.  A second manifold at 2.26 also appears to be a painted elbow. Not dichromate plated. Yes, no?

Quote from: trotrof1 on April 10, 2020, 11:20:48 AM
Scrutinizing the film, I noticed that starting at 2.20 the first intake appears to have a painted water elbow with the nipple bare metal when the hose was removed.  A second manifold at 2.26 also appears to be a painted elbow....

At Ford the nipples for the heater hose connections as well as radiator hoses were masked (likely a slip tube) to keep paint off those surfaces to improve the sealing properties and reduce the chance of leaks.

Is this a instance where a component could have either external coating  possibly a timeline thing? Painted or plated.

Quote from: trotrof1 on April 10, 2020, 02:30:50 PM
Is this a instance where a component could have either external coating  possibly a timeline thing? Painted or plated.

Believe the discussion has been if the elbows were removed and reused after the intakes were swapped and after the engine was run (like the thermostat housing and bypass hose/clamps) or if it was easier/cheaper to replace them to be replaced with a new elbow.


Of course the practice would possibly be related to the production period at the engine plant and or SA. Looking at the whole 65 and 66 production periods (many many months) there are examples with ones that have remnants of paint on some examples. Again it's best to compare apples with apples  IMHO

Believe I've posted some pictures of some of them in other threads here

Thanks Jeff, interesting how these old videos and photos reveal some details.

Personally I believe this can be explained by artifacts like shadows and reflections.

When the first intake starts being lowered into place at the 2:13 mark the elbow looks unpainted to me, as it's being lowered onto the block the shade changes until it almost looks completely painted. The elbow on the second intake at 2:26 looks to be all the same shade as well. It is darker, but still could be explained by a shadow or reflection to me.

Just my opinion...

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 11, 2020, 12:50:33 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:45:08 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 11, 2020, 12:50:33 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

I didn't think a unreasonable question given the picture of the factory build sheet showing the normal hipo being substituted for the apparent Shelbized engine version that you posted. That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make . I know that was not your intention.    " Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production." You can understand why I might want to have the same understanding so that I too could have a high confidence level in your point of view. In as courteous and respectful way possible I asked the question .

First sorry I've not been able to show as much attention to the forum. Virus stuff has kept the family busy as well as other things. And like th evirus - doesn't appear it will be easing soon. Just don't have as much time to look deeply at the subject and data. With that said

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:45:08 PM
The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

In the hopes that both sided can be heard and the discussion can continue in a pleasant manner

I'm a bit confused why you gave grouped together 65, carry over and 66 production together and are using 65 information for 66 while not looking, also at 67 since all were built at the same plant and Shelby was still in the south. Think that should enter into the discussion if we're going to look at the whole subject.

Not sure of the "any evidence" statement since you posted the engine letter in two of your responses.

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172828.jpeg)



If we're going to look at the whole subject - not the intended purpose of the thread as I can see - of engines being dressed at the engine plant or SA then we need to include in addition to the letter I would offer the following view of the paperwork from the paperwork of 71-2502 Indicating that as a change from 71-2501 the engines with the carb, intake, valve covers and other parts be part of this order. A change from the earlier order

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172125.jpeg)

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

May need more research since 370 identification was used for another non- high performance V8 if the first couple of books I pulled were incorrect

You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant.

And in closing this time I respectfully would ask that you add to the discussion 67 production practices as it relates to the engine as IMHO it has as much to do with 66 production as 65 does to 66 production

So a few things to add to the discussion. Most likely this may continue for a couple more years as we find more and new information, add it to the discussion and either change or fortify a current belief

Quote from: s2ms on April 07, 2020, 10:07:43 PM
Jeff, never noticed this before but...on the ad you posted the carb is mounted backwards on the intake!

Never noticed that either. Guess they were separated during disassembly for some reason . Of course if they were recycling the items also that would produce a need to separate them.


As far as dating when the different sections of the film were made sure everyone understands that with editing and such the different sections could and possibly were made months apart then spliced together to form the "story" the film maker wanted to tell.

Of course black and white pictures and film make it difficult to determine some details

Cars could be just about any non-white color if you start comparing the color of the engine compartment, engine color and the exterior color its a hard one. Given the wheels (don't want to go back into the carb thing since that brings this discussion back to the engine one ;)

I would agree they appear to be a group of possibly Hertz cars. Unfortunately we can see the VIN's on the papers attached to the windshield like we can in other stills from the factory. Radiator does have what appears to be a soldered on ID tag on the passenger side which again confirms the 66 time period after the real 66's were being built.

Wonder why the stack of tires and wheels are stored so close to the line since a wheel/tire swap wasn't needed. Maybe just short of storage space for ones from other cars and that is where they ended up.

There are some other details but will maybe post those later.

Happy Easter to all !

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 11, 2020, 05:03:49 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:45:08 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 11, 2020, 12:50:33 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

I didn't think a unreasonable question given the picture of the factory build sheet showing the normal hipo being substituted for the apparent Shelbized engine version that you posted. That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make . I know that was not your intention.    " Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production." You can understand why I might want to have the same understanding so that I too could have a high confidence level in your point of view. In as courteous and respectful way possible I asked the question .

Bob,

I agree with you 100% that your question was not unreasonable and you were very courteous and respectful. And I sincerely apologize if any comment I made gave you the impression that I felt otherwise. And I courteously and respectfully replied to your question. Although I'm not sure why either of us needs to point that out. Courtesy and respect are usually self evident.

And for the record, I agree with you that it would be interesting to know the information that Howard has that he based his comments on. But, as already stated, I don't push him to reveal documents or information that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

BTW, while I appreciate your polite effort to help me out, I did not contradict my own point in my previous post. I respectfully ask that you go back and read my post and review the DSO excerpt. It appears that you've reversed the content. I posted (and the DSO shows) that Shelby American was asking that the Shelbized engine be substituted for the normal hipo. Install SE370 (Shelbized version) and delete D554J (normal hipo). That's the request that Ford rejected. And that's part of the evidence that supports my point.

Now, I'm going to apologize ahead of time for the next paragraph. I don't want you to think I'm being confrontational or disrespectful or unreasonable. And I hate to be repetitive. But, because I respect and value your knowledge and opinion, I would really like an answer if you would be so kind.

For the fifth time in this thread, I ask you to please post whatever information you have that would counter the video that started this thread and the evidence I've presented that clearly show that S.A. installed the Shelby engine accessories at least through the end of 1966 production.

Thank you,
Steve

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 11, 2020, 05:45:07 PM
First sorry I've not been able to show as much attention to the forum. Virus stuff has kept the family busy as well as other things. And like th evirus - doesn't appear it will be easing soon. Just don't have as much time to look deeply at the subject and data. With that said

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:45:08 PM
The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

In the hopes that both sided can be heard and the discussion can continue in a pleasant manner

I'm a bit confused why you gave grouped together 65, carry over and 66 production together and are using 65 information for 66 while not looking, also at 67 since all were built at the same plant and Shelby was still in the south. Think that should enter into the discussion if we're going to look at the whole subject.

Not sure of the "any evidence" statement since you posted the engine letter in two of your responses.

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172828.jpeg)



If we're going to look at the whole subject - not the intended purpose of the thread as I can see - of engines being dressed at the engine plant or SA then we need to include in addition to the letter I would offer the following view of the paperwork from the paperwork of 71-2502 Indicating that as a change from 71-2501 the engines with the carb, intake, valve covers and other parts be part of this order. A change from the earlier order

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172125.jpeg)

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 03:14:56 AM
I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

May need more research since 370 identification was used for another non- high performance V8 if the first couple of books I pulled were incorrect

You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant.

And in closing this time I respectfully would ask that you add to the discussion 67 production practices as it relates to the engine as IMHO it has as much to do with 66 production as 65 does to 66 production

So a few things to add to the discussion. Most likely this may continue for a couple more years as we find more and new information, add it to the discussion and either change or fortify a current belief

Jeff,

First, I will be praying for you and your family. And I understand being pressed for time. My job is considered essential so I'm still going to work as well as dealing with other pressures during this trying time. But I'm not complaining about that. I thank God every day that I still have my job.

Now to address your comments and questions in the order they were made.

I have mentioned 65's and carryovers in this discussion because of the following:
1. There are some 1965 GT350's and carryovers with black painted intakes. Which almost certainly means they received those intakes at Ford. For me, that makes them part of this discussion.
2. The DSO I have showing Shelby requesting the regular hipo's be deleted and Shelbized engines installed is for carryovers. It's proof that at least an attempt was make to do that. Pardee says that request was rejected by Ford, and never repeated by SA – at least not through the end of 1966 production. And that's at least partially confirmed by the fact that the first DSO for full spec 1966 cars has no mention of that engine substitution. I have a copy of that DSO, but didn't post it because it's several pages long and it's the absence of certain text that makes it significant. I didn't think it would be useful to post that and tell people notice that something is not there. But if you think that would advance this discussion I will post it.

I left out the 67's because I didn't see the tie-in. The pictures that Bob posted are interesting and certainly appear to prove that Ford installed the Shelby engine components – at least on those cars. But, for me, it didn't prove anything about the 1966 cars except that Ford could do that if they wanted to. And I didn't think that was ever in question.

You posted a repeat of the "Intra-Company Communication" form that I mentioned in reply #28 and placed online in reply #50. And your comments indicate to me that you consider that evidence of Ford installing the Shelby engine components on the 1966 cars. I disagree. That form is dated May 7, 1965 and appears to be a planning document with "examples" that mention manifold castings. For me that suggests that there were "plans" that apparently included having Ford install the intakes on the 1966 GT350's. But Ford and Shelby made plenty of "plans" that didn't come to fruition. And in this case the DSO's that I've mentioned (dated after that memo) indicate that's what happened – those "plans" didn't come to fruition. I included that memo in the timeline of documents that I posted because I thought it was worthy of mention. But it only proves that there may have been "plans" for Ford to install the intakes on the 1966 cars. I don't consider it evidence of that actually happening.

Thank you so much for the excerpt from DSO 71-2502. That's exactly what I've been looking for. Some evidence related to this topic that I was previously unaware of - something new to learn. Yee Ha! The copy you posted is not very clear, and I have to admit I'm not experienced at reading DSO sheets. Would you please devote one of your replies exclusively to explaining what's written there and what it means. Also, I'd like to know the date of that DSO and which 1965 cars it's for. You don't have to reveal the actual SFM numbers if you don't wish. But if you know roughly where those cars fit into the 1965 run that would be helpful. Were they early, middle, or late in the production run of 1965's? Again, thank you for posting that!

I appreciate your interest in researching the SE370 engine code.

You have the paragraph below which I don't understand:

"You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant."

It sounds like you have a picture that would be nice to see, but I don't understand the exact significance. And I don't recall mentioning anything about engines being built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. I know my memory is not what is should be, but I just don't remember that. And actually, I thought all the engines were built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. Please educate me. (And forgive my poor memory.)

If you think there's a tie-in, then by all means add the 67 production practices to this discussion. I don't see the relevance, but as always, I'm ready to learn.

If I missed anything in this reply just poke me with a sharp stick and repeat the question.

Again, thanks for joining this discussion.
Steve

Additional Evidence

I was hoping to have Jeff Speegle's input on the following information before posting it here. But I've learned that he has much more important demands on his time right now. We're fortunate that he's managed to participate to some limited degree in this discussion. But I can see that my attempt to have him critique this before I post it was an unreasonable request. With that said, here is the additional evidence that I mentioned in previous posts.

In the following paragraphs I mention engine tags and decals. I know that most 1965/66 GT350's lost their engine tags in the production process. But a few didn't. So I mention the tags in this discussion in the interest of technical accuracy.

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.

Please keep in mind that this is "additional" evidence to what I've already presented on this topic. The icing on the cake so to speak. The cake still exists; with or without this icing. I believe the above to be accurate and persuasive, but even if it's not, the previous evidence stands on its own and still proves my case – Shelby American installed the Shelby engine accessories on the 1965-66 GT350's (except for the few cars with black painted intakes.)

And don't forget the video that started this thread showing Cobra intakes with Holley carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line in 1966. That's pretty solid, stand-alone evidence right there. Unless you don't believe your lying eyes. Ha, ha!

[Note: Some of my previous posts were misunderstood for either their tone or content. So, for anyone who doesn't catch it, let me clearly state – that "lying eyes" comment is a joke – my feeble attempt to lighten up this discussion with a little corny humor.]

Steve

thank you Steve for your time and your work to find all the infos you share here !And i feel you have the good attitude , "ready to learn " if something else show up .  ;)

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 13, 2020, 04:10:48 AM
Additional Evidence

I was hoping to have Jeff Speegle's input on the following information before posting it here. But I've learned that he has much more important demands on his time right now. We're fortunate that he's managed to participate to some limited degree in this discussion. But I can see that my attempt to have him critique this before I post it was an unreasonable request. With that said, here is the additional evidence that I mentioned in previous posts.

In the following paragraphs I mention engine tags and decals. I know that most 1965/66 GT350's lost their engine tags in the production process. But a few didn't. So I mention the tags in this discussion in the interest of technical accuracy.

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.

Please keep in mind that this is "additional" evidence to what I've already presented on this topic. The icing on the cake so to speak. The cake still exists; with or without this icing. I believe the above to be accurate and persuasive, but even if it's not, the previous evidence stands on its own and still proves my case – Shelby American installed the Shelby engine accessories on the 1965-66 GT350's (except for the few cars with black painted intakes.)

And don't forget the video that started this thread showing Cobra intakes with Holley carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line in 1966. That's pretty solid, stand-alone evidence right there. Unless you don't believe your lying eyes. Ha, ha!

[Note: Some of my previous posts were misunderstood for either their tone or content. So, for anyone who doesn't catch it, let me clearly state – that "lying eyes" comment is a joke – my feeble attempt to lighten up this discussion with a little corny humor.]

Steve

Steve, I too have some issues that are not allowing me 100% time spent for research on this discussion . I am currently going through SA factory memos I have in my files to sort out any that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Some of the info is new and contradicts some of your theories. I may take me a few days to get everything sorted out and a response posted .Thank you in advance for your patience.

Quote from: chris NOS on April 13, 2020, 04:38:11 AM
thank you Steve for your time and your work to find all the infos you share here !And i feel you have the good attitude , "ready to learn " if something else show up .  ;)

Thanks for the kind words. We're fortunate to have this wonderful community of Shelby enthusiasts to share in and assist with our journey of learning. And for me, getting corrections to things I "think' I already know is just as exciting as discovering something completely new.

That's one of the great benefits of posting something here. There are plenty of real experts (I'm not one) willing to get me back on track when I've gone off the rails.

Steve

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 13, 2020, 02:08:32 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 13, 2020, 04:10:48 AM
Additional Evidence

I was hoping to have Jeff Speegle's input on the following information before posting it here. But I've learned that he has much more important demands on his time right now. We're fortunate that he's managed to participate to some limited degree in this discussion. But I can see that my attempt to have him critique this before I post it was an unreasonable request. With that said, here is the additional evidence that I mentioned in previous posts.

In the following paragraphs I mention engine tags and decals. I know that most 1965/66 GT350's lost their engine tags in the production process. But a few didn't. So I mention the tags in this discussion in the interest of technical accuracy.

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.

Please keep in mind that this is "additional" evidence to what I've already presented on this topic. The icing on the cake so to speak. The cake still exists; with or without this icing. I believe the above to be accurate and persuasive, but even if it's not, the previous evidence stands on its own and still proves my case – Shelby American installed the Shelby engine accessories on the 1965-66 GT350's (except for the few cars with black painted intakes.)

And don't forget the video that started this thread showing Cobra intakes with Holley carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line in 1966. That's pretty solid, stand-alone evidence right there. Unless you don't believe your lying eyes. Ha, ha!

[Note: Some of my previous posts were misunderstood for either their tone or content. So, for anyone who doesn't catch it, let me clearly state – that "lying eyes" comment is a joke – my feeble attempt to lighten up this discussion with a little corny humor.]

Steve

Steve, I too have some issues that are not allowing me 100% time spent for research on this discussion . I am currently going through SA factory memos I have in my files to sort out any that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Some of the info is new and contradicts some of your theories. I may take me a few days to get everything sorted out and a response posted .Thank you in advance for your patience.

Thanks, Bob. I really appreciate you taking the time to contribute what you have to this discussion. I'll try to be patient, but I have to admit that the prospect of seeing new evidence on this topic has me excited. I can't tell you how elated I was when I saw the video that started this thread. Every new piece of the puzzle is another thrilling find.

Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
1. There are some 1965 GT350's and carryovers with black painted intakes. Which almost certainly means they received those intakes at Ford. For me, that makes them part of this discussion.

Agree this may support that Ford did ass the parts during that time period and the whole thing about including the aluminum engine ID tag and paper tags as discussed in another post. This supports the idea that there was another way to "mark" the engines as being different - special

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM2. The DSO I have showing Shelby requesting the regular hipo's be deleted and Shelbized engines installed is for carryovers. It's proof that at least an attempt was make to do that. Pardee says that request was rejected by Ford, and never repeated by SA – at least not through the end of 1966 production. And that's at least partially confirmed by the fact that the first DSO for full spec 1966 cars has no mention of that engine substitution. I have a copy of that DSO, but didn't post it because it's several pages long and it's the absence of certain text that makes it significant. I didn't think it would be useful to post that and tell people notice that something is not there. But if you think that would advance this discussion I will post it.

Do we have access to the paperwork for the same group of cars if this was rejected and in turn reordered?

And do we have the following order since these often refer back to the earlier group/DSO?

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
I left out the 67's because I didn't see the tie-in. The pictures that Bob posted are interesting and certainly appear to prove that Ford installed the Shelby engine components – at least on those cars. But, for me, it didn't prove anything about the 1966 cars except that Ford could do that if they wanted to. And I didn't think that was ever in question.

Since these cars were also produced (focusing just on the small blocks for the moment) with the same engine ID stickers as non- Shelby's that is another clue suggesting that the engines were otherwise identified as different other than the paper sticker number solely

Trying to stay with one focus at a time. :)  At some point it would be nice to get back to the details shown in the plant section of the film and the other details contained in that short slip

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 13, 2020, 04:10:48 AM

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.....

Forgive me for shortening the quote the long quotes (were readers can go back and reread the original) produce allot of "fill" for readers screens.

First would like to start off with the fact that all of this discussion will not likely bring us all to the same conclusion since it requires each of us to ignore some documents and accept others since not everything aligns.  Even if we did it would still not lead it to an indisputable answer only a current understanding. We can all think of things in the past that were considered "facts" only to be disproved later.  The history of Shelby's, their production numbers, and other details have gone through many changes and when something new is found, discussed and either accepted for that time period and possibly beyond – or at least until some new clue is discovered.

But with all that said things can be learned by sharing and the exchange of views as well as knowledge. Will try and keep the post short since I accept the fact that most will turn out after the first two or three paragraphs.

Believe your assumptions in relationship to engine identification are incorrect. Bottom line is that the engine plant had practices in use that identified "special" engines built for special orders in addition to the standard ID stickers placed on water pumps, oil filters, coils, valve covers and so on. On method was placing a label on the driver's side valve cover with the additional identifier such as a code or just DSO as like Sterling plant did for the rearend (written on the housing) destined for use in the 65-66 Shelby's


As far as the "SE370" believe that was likely a misprint or a mistake that was later corrected or just something that was dropped - like other things you suggested happen. That number would place the engine within a grouping of FE style engines in the Ford engine coding while there is "room" for other numbers available in the small block range and  it would have been just as easy to add "SE" to the 554 since that was the base engine. Those possibilities added to the fact that they did not need the engine id number for identification purposes as shown above lead me to believe this is something other than something that reached production.

Sorry I went a bit too long

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM

It sounds like you have a picture that would be nice to see, but I don't understand the exact significance. And I don't recall mentioning anything about engines being built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. I know my memory is not what is should be, but I just don't remember that. And actually, I thought all the engines were built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. Please educate me. (And forgive my poor memory.)

Yes maybe we can work something out with me bringing something to the convention - like Howard there are some limitations of some of the stuff given or purchased that restrict my posting.

Little confused by your statement above - sorry must be me - but I thought the whole discussion was about where the engines were completed - Shelby or at Ford and also during what time periods since we have some periods that you have included your currently accept they were. If I understand correctly during the late 65 into carry over (black intake engines) and 67.

More to follow

Replies in blue.

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 15, 2020, 03:20:55 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
1. There are some 1965 GT350's and carryovers with black painted intakes. Which almost certainly means they received those intakes at Ford. For me, that makes them part of this discussion.

Agree this may support that Ford did ass the parts during that time period and the whole thing about including the aluminum engine ID tag and paper tags as discussed in another post. This supports the idea that there was another way to "mark" the engines as being different - special

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM2. The DSO I have showing Shelby requesting the regular hipo's be deleted and Shelbized engines installed is for carryovers. It's proof that at least an attempt was make to do that. Pardee says that request was rejected by Ford, and never repeated by SA – at least not through the end of 1966 production. And that's at least partially confirmed by the fact that the first DSO for full spec 1966 cars has no mention of that engine substitution. I have a copy of that DSO, but didn't post it because it's several pages long and it's the absence of certain text that makes it significant. I didn't think it would be useful to post that and tell people notice that something is not there. But if you think that would advance this discussion I will post it.

Do we have access to the paperwork for the same group of cars if this was rejected and in turn reordered?

I do not have copies of any of the paperwork involving Ford refusing to do the engine substitution for DSO 71-2510. I accept Pardee's word for that. I don't know if a different DSO was submitted or if Ford simply denied that substitution and filled the rest of the order as submitted on that DSO.

And do we have the following order since these often refer back to the earlier group/DSO?

Here are the DSOs' I'm aware of that would play into that time period.
71-2509 Dated 6/16/15 for 33 package tray carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2510 Dated 6/16/65   for 67 rear seat carryovers (I have a copy)
71-2511 Dated 7-2-65 for 100 rear seat carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2512 Dated 7-2-65 for 50 rear seat carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2601 Dated 09-17-65 for the first group of full spec 1966 GT350's

As you can see above. There were a pair of DSO's for carryovers that were submitted after 71-2510. I do not have copies of those. Then DSO 71-2601 for the first full spec 1966 GT350's was placed – with no mention of the engine substitution. I do have a copy of that. I'll post it here if you wish. Let me know.

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
I left out the 67's because I didn't see the tie-in. The pictures that Bob posted are interesting and certainly appear to prove that Ford installed the Shelby engine components – at least on those cars. But, for me, it didn't prove anything about the 1966 cars except that Ford could do that if they wanted to. And I didn't think that was ever in question.

Since these cars were also produced (focusing just on the small blocks for the moment) with the same engine ID stickers as non- Shelby's that is another clue suggesting that the engines were otherwise identified as different other than the paper sticker number solely

To be clear, you're saying that in 1967 Ford used the same engine tag and decal designations for two different configurations – 289hp with Shelby components for GT350's, and 289hp without Shelby components for other cars. Both of those engine builds got the same tag/decal designation. Correct? If so, that's great information to have. THANKS!

Replies in blue.

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 15, 2020, 03:33:34 PM
Trying to stay with one focus at a time. :)  At some point it would be nice to get back to the details shown in the plant section of the film and the other details contained in that short slip

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 13, 2020, 04:10:48 AM

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.....

Forgive me for shortening the quote the long quotes (were readers can go back and reread the original) produce allot of "fill" for readers screens.

First would like to start off with the fact that all of this discussion will not likely bring us all to the same conclusion since it requires each of us to ignore some documents and accept others since not everything aligns.  Even if we did it would still not lead it to an indisputable answer only a current understanding. We can all think of things in the past that were considered "facts" only to be disproved later.  The history of Shelby's, their production numbers, and other details have gone through many changes and when something new is found, discussed and either accepted for that time period and possibly beyond – or at least until some new clue is discovered.

Hey, it's okay to disagree. Discussing various views and presenting conflicting evidence is always educational for me. Hopefully at some point we can compose a list of the evidence on either side of this issue – possibly in a timeline form. Then others reading this can come to their own conclusions. And who knows, maybe they'll spot something significant that we both missed. All good fun.

But with all that said things can be learned by sharing and the exchange of views as well as knowledge. Will try and keep the post short since I accept the fact that most will turn out after the first two or three paragraphs.

Believe your assumptions in relationship to engine identification are incorrect. Bottom line is that the engine plant had practices in use that identified "special" engines built for special orders in addition to the standard ID stickers placed on water pumps, oil filters, coils, valve covers and so on. On method was placing a label on the driver's side valve cover with the additional identifier such as a code or just DSO as like Sterling plant did for the rearend (written on the housing) destined for use in the 65-66 Shelby's

Thanks, for the engine tag/decal info. From what you've posted it looks like the engine tag/decal codes don't prove anything. I'll note that in my research files.


As far as the "SE370" believe that was likely a misprint or a mistake that was later corrected or just something that was dropped - like other things you suggested happen. That number would place the engine within a grouping of FE style engines in the Ford engine coding while there is "room" for other numbers available in the small block range and  it would have been just as easy to add "SE" to the 554 since that was the base engine. Those possibilities added to the fact that they did not need the engine id number for identification purposes as shown above lead me to believe this is something other than something that reached production.

Again, thanks for the info.

Sorry I went a bit too long

Replies in green.

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 15, 2020, 03:40:45 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM

It sounds like you have a picture that would be nice to see, but I don't understand the exact significance. And I don't recall mentioning anything about engines being built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. I know my memory is not what is should be, but I just don't remember that. And actually, I thought all the engines were built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. Please educate me. (And forgive my poor memory.)

Yes maybe we can work something out with me bringing something to the convention - like Howard there are some limitations of some of the stuff given or purchased that restrict my posting.

I don't generally get to the conventions so if you have something you wish to share that should not be posted in public we'll need to work out some other arrangement. You could email me a copy. Or you could just describe what you have in an email. If you just tell me the type of document, date, and pertinent info I'll take you word for it. You don't have to send an actual copy if you don't want to.

Little confused by your statement above - sorry must be me - but I thought the whole discussion was about where the engines were completed - Shelby or at Ford and also during what time periods since we have some periods that you have included your currently accept they were. If I understand correctly during the late 65 into carry over (black intake engines) and 67.

My apology. I misunderstood what you meant by "being built completely." In my mind, every engine Ford installed into a car had been "built completely" at Ford. And the discussion was about where those engines received their Shelby components. Oddly, I didn't think of that as completing the engine build. I always thought of that as a conversion process. Again, my apology for the misunderstanding.

More to follow

A major complicating factor is that lots of things got written on paper - in memos and even on firm orders - that didn't end up actually happening (like the engine substitution on the DSO that I posted). For me, that makes period photos (like the 1967 cars that Bob posted) and videos (like the one from 1966 that started this topic) even more valuable. And makes it a priority to try to gather as much evidence as possible. I appreciate everyone who contributes to that search.

Steve

   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 16, 2020, 05:14:08 PM
   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

A 5/4/65 staff meeting has Junor explaining that the engine delay at the Cleveland engine plant would affect the number of engines available for units being built at SJ . This also indicates that SA was depending on Ford to add the parts on the engine. See attachment 4. On 5/7/65 a Intra-company Communication went out that discussed the various Shelby engine parts numbers need for projected production engines so that they could be ordered and have time to be on hand at the Cleveland engine plant. See attachment 5. I have another GT350 production document that is not dated when it was produced but mentions 5/19/65 which may have been when DSO's were ordered because of more then one DSO attributed to the same date. On this sheet it mentions that one of the order's the 554-J-3-SE370 engine which is apparently the Shelbyized hipo engine was going to be changed to a 289 hipo engine and SA was going to do the conversion. This was because it was noted at the bottom of the page that the engine plant is unable to make the special engines before model changeover. See attachment 6. This wording is significant because it was matter of fact that the "special engines "had been previously installed at Ford and that also insinuated that after some time after model changeover the special engines would resume being shipped. I would like to mention in response to the theory that because the metal engine tags didn't have a special number on them that means they were not a Ford produced Shelbyized engine. I would speculate that was because only the prefix 554 J was needed on the Shelbized engine for identification which was more for internals then cosmetics. This theory is supported by the fact that the documents have established that the Ford Shelbyized engines were ordered and installed at the Ford SJ plant. We also have the visual historic documentation of the black intakes which of course SA would not have done. I would also add as a point of context given, we do have evidence for those that the 67 GT350 engines did not have a unusual metal tag stamped number or out of the ordinary paper coil tag number. We have historical photo evidence of both the unconverted cars in the lot with engine mods added and close ups of engines with the standard hipo paper tag. This is significant because if you work backwards and consider it was good enough for the 67-model year it must be good enough for the 66-model year. The same can be said for the 65-model year in that if it was done in 65 than it is reasonable to assume that it would be done the same in 66. That is for the engine tags. So, if you have never seen a special engine tag on a 65,66 or 67 Shelby engine then you are not alone because it can be reasonably concluded that there is none. 

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 16, 2020, 05:19:16 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 16, 2020, 05:14:08 PM
   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

A 5/4/65 staff meeting has Junor explaining that the engine delay at the Cleveland engine plant would affect the number of engines available for units being built at SJ . This also indicates that SA was depending on Ford to add the parts on the engine. See attachment 4. On 5/7/65 a Intra-company Communication went out that discussed the various Shelby engine parts numbers need for projected production engines so that they could be ordered and have time to be on hand at the Cleveland engine plant. See attachment 5. I have another GT350 production document that is not dated when it was produced but mentions 5/19/65 which may have been when DSO's were ordered because of more then one DSO attributed to the same date. On this sheet it mentions that one of the order's the 554-J-3-SE370 engine which is apparently the Shelbyized hipo engine was going to be changed to a 289 hipo engine and SA was going to do the conversion. This was because it was noted at the bottom of the page that the engine plant is unable to make the special engines before model changeover. See attachment 6. This wording is significant because it was matter of fact that the "special engines "had been previously installed at Ford and that also insinuated that after some time after model changeover the special engines would resume being shipped. I would like to mention in response to the theory that because the metal engine tags didn't have a special number on them that means they were not a Ford produced Shelbyized engine. I would speculate that was because only the prefix 554 J was needed on the Shelbized engine for identification which was more for internals then cosmetics. This theory is supported by the fact that the documents have established that the Ford Shelbyized engines were ordered and installed at the Ford SJ plant. We also have the visual historic documentation of the black intakes which of course SA would not have done. I would also add as a point of context given, we do have evidence for those that the 67 GT350 engines did not have a unusual metal tag stamped number or out of the ordinary paper coil tag number. We have historical photo evidence of both the unconverted cars in the lot with engine mods added and close ups of engines with the standard hipo paper tag. This is significant because if you work backwards and consider it was good enough for the 67-model year it must be good enough for the 66-model year. The same can be said for the 65-model year in that if it was done in 65 than it is reasonable to assume that it would be done the same in 66. That is for the engine tags. So, if you have never seen a special engine tag on a 65,66 or 67 Shelby engine then you are not alone because it can be reasonably concluded that there is none.

A staff meeting on 10/26/65 that the new highriser intake that could be used for automatics would be available Friday 10/29/65 with automatics (hipo version no doubt) going into production on that Monday 11/1/65. See attachment 7. For those unfamiliar with the significance this was most likely the changeover from the small letter S1MS Cobra intake to the S2MS large letter Cobra intake which had two vacuum ports one for PCV and another for accessories like automatic transmission. The S2MS intake became the standard intake from that time forward with the second port plugged off when used on 4 speed cars. The way the document is worded indicates to me that the intakes where at or near the same place that the automatic transmissions were. In this case the Cleveland plant. It doesn't say the intakes would be at SA on Friday or that the automatics would be at the SJ plant or the Cleveland engine plant. It is written in such a way that it is reasonable to assume that both would be near or together.   They would only be near or together if the intakes were being installed at the engine plant or Ford Facility and not at SA. This evidence brings me to the conclusion that although there most likely was an interruption in Ford installing the engine Shelby engine parts on engines destined to become GT350's there were others that were installed at the Ford Cleveland engine plant during the 66 production . The time line of late 65 GT350 with Ford Shelbyized engines, Carryover 66 GT350's with Shelbyized  engines and all 67 GT350 with Ford Shelbyized engines adds to the reasonable conclusion that at least some of the other 66 GT350 production used Ford Shelbyized engines too. I would point out that if the French video was not a staged publicity shot it would be after approximately car 900 given the Autolite carb. If there was interruption for some reason that forced SA to once again add the Shelby engine parts it would be only until Ford/Shelby got the issue resolved because the loss of profit was  a great incentive to resolve the issue. It is obvious that this was not a tremendous hurdle given the engine parts were installed exclusively at the engine plant in all of 67, the vast majority of 68 (some GT350 intakes)and all of 69/70. We don't have all of the pieces to the puzzle but given the time line and the way things were done before and after 66 production this is my point of view until more definitive evidence suggest otherwise.   

Professor Gaines at his best. I am humbled.

Thanks for posting and to John  Atzbach  for allowing/making them available

Following up on your earlier request. First would mention that the form references 71-2502 as the earlier build group but the identification for  this group was 71-2504. Sorry. Lots of numbers and as you have found not all easy to make out

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
Thank you so much for the excerpt from DSO 71-2502. That's exactly what I've been looking for. Some evidence related to this topic that I was previously unaware of - something new to learn. Yee Ha! The copy you posted is not very clear, and I have to admit I'm not experienced at reading DSO sheets. Would you please devote one of your replies exclusively to explaining what's written there and what it means. Also, I'd like to know the date of that DSO and which 1965 cars it's for. You don't have to reveal the actual SFM numbers if you don't wish. But if you know roughly where those cars fit into the 1965 run that would be helpful. Were they early, middle, or late in the production run of 1965's? Again, thank you for posting that!

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172125.jpeg)

As I read the first page  I can make out about 98% of the typed and handwritten details as follows


Top of the form shows SPECIAL ORDER. Some refer to these as Add/Delete, SVO (Special Vehicle Orders) and other terms. We copies of them throughout Shelby production, 69's are the latest I've seen copies of.

ALL SPECIFICATIIONS TO BE IDENTICAL TO DSO 71-2502 EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
Two columns to the right show 5393020

- First line text is struck-through with the note STD PER SUPP #1

- Holley carb (xx259?)

- Special intake manifold

- Special fuel line – XXX 9A2774-F (Franklin Products)

- Cast rocker covers LH - C3RA-6582-C  RH – C4RA-6582-A

- Rocker cover washers –(354610- ?40 (?crrett)

- Rocker cover bolts (20364-? 8) (?ird??ll and Ford)

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

To the right we see someone grouped these items together and signed off on them 3-2-65 with the initials RA. In addition to these we see the group identified by the number 5393061

The date dial in the top right shows the form was received on Jan 11th 1965 and initialed by "B"

Other dates from the top of the form

Date typed – 12/30/1964

Date order received at Ford – 12/29/64

Wire Inquiry No. Previous DSO No. – 71-2502

DSO No. (PSO No.) 71-2504 My addition – for this order.

Other hand written initials for sign off "JP" (might be something else) and "WB" then 1-27 and 1-22

At the bottom we have Req Release Date From Fleet: 3/15/65

Order Accepted by followed by a signature and the date 1/16/65

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 16, 2020, 12:12:26 PM
I don't generally get to the conventions so if you have something you wish to share that should not be posted in public we'll need to work out some other arrangement. You could email me a copy. Or you could just describe what you have in an email. If you just tell me the type of document, date, and pertinent info I'll take you word for it. You don't have to send an actual copy if you don't want to.[/color]

The picture is of the shipping dock at Cleveland Engine plant.

The picture shows just under 100 engines (likely 289's) on shipping cradles and and in racks. A rail car, with its doors open is sitting at the loading dock loaded with empty engine shipping cradles being returned to the plant - waiting to be unloaded. Engines are all small block engines for manual and automatic installation.

In the middle of the picture (likely staged) there is a worker with a clipboard appearing to be checking some detail on an engine.

Since I was describing how two engines identified by the same engine ID sticker/label could be identified as a different or special engine of the same type, there is a small group of engines in the last couples of rows so they are not as clear as other, closer engine combinations. But looking closer you can see all of this group are manual transmission destined engines. Two of these engines have a large label applied to the driver's side valve cover with a large DSO lettering identifying that they are different in some way from all the others in view.  These two also have chrome valve covers. In the row right in front of these two is another 289 with what appears to possibly be aluminum valve covers and the clear plastic bag used to cover the carb may have a longer and different shape than others around it.

In the back of the room there are stacks of exhaust manifolds and other engine parts likely received but not yet entered into stock and eventually to the assembly area

That's my best effort to describe this picture. Was very excited when this one was located

There are no notations on the back side of the 8x10 BW picture other than the picture was provided by Ford's North Central public Relations Office located in Cleveland. Picture is dated (possibly when published) by Cleveland Press Reference Dept. paper April 22 1966. Easy to see the picture was taken allot earlier that that. 

In reply to Bob's 3 most recent posts:

Yee Ha! Research gold!

Well done, Bob! Thank you so much for the time you spent digging all that out and then posting here – with explanations. I knew all along that you had to have something solid to base your opinion on. And it had to be something that I was unaware of. Hence my continual prodding to get you to share what you had. It was worth it to get this treasure trove of documents along with your expert interpretation to put them into context.

I may have some questions later, but for now let me summarize my thoughts based on this new information.

The basic evidence I opened this discussion with appears to be accurate, but incomplete. (I figured that all along. That's why I kept asking for anyone with more info to post it and prodding you for your evidence.)

The engine tags/decals that I posted about later (and gave some credence to) are of no value in this discussion, since Ford used the same tags/decals for engines with and without Shelby components. Both you and Jeff have educated me on that point. Thank you to both of you.

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.

The "SE370" that I spotted on DSO71-2510 does designate a Shelbyized Engine. Only having that one document as a reference, and based on his knowledge of Ford part numbers, Jeff thought that might be a misprint. And that was a reasonable supposition with what we had at the time. However, these additional documents settle that issue.

And you are due additional SPECIAL THANKS FROM ME for posting the documents with details about the carryovers. Yes, they were pertinent to this discussion, but they mean so much more to a carryover nut like myself.

As Jeff has mentioned, reasonable people may disagree. But at least now we're both looking at the same evidence.

THANKS AGAIN!
Steve

Update added on 4/26/20 – The above contains my first reaction after viewing the documents that Bob posted. After further research I have slightly modified a few of the conclusions stated above. If you wish to see my latest thoughts on this please read reply #93.

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 16, 2020, 09:22:05 PM
Following up on your earlier request. First would mention that the form references 71-2502 as the earlier build group but the identification for  this group was 71-2504. Sorry. Lots of numbers and as you have found not all easy to make out

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 11, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
Thank you so much for the excerpt from DSO 71-2502. That's exactly what I've been looking for. Some evidence related to this topic that I was previously unaware of - something new to learn. Yee Ha! The copy you posted is not very clear, and I have to admit I'm not experienced at reading DSO sheets. Would you please devote one of your replies exclusively to explaining what's written there and what it means. Also, I'd like to know the date of that DSO and which 1965 cars it's for. You don't have to reveal the actual SFM numbers if you don't wish. But if you know roughly where those cars fit into the 1965 run that would be helpful. Were they early, middle, or late in the production run of 1965's? Again, thank you for posting that!

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/13/6-110420172125.jpeg)

As I read the first page  I can make out about 98% of the typed and handwritten details as follows


Top of the form shows SPECIAL ORDER. Some refer to these as Add/Delete, SVO (Special Vehicle Orders) and other terms. We copies of them throughout Shelby production, 69's are the latest I've seen copies of.

ALL SPECIFICATIIONS TO BE IDENTICAL TO DSO 71-2502 EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
Two columns to the right show 5393020

- First line text is struck-through with the note STD PER SUPP #1

- Holley carb (xx259?)

- Special intake manifold

- Special fuel line – XXX 9A2774-F (Franklin Products)

- Cast rocker covers LH - C3RA-6582-C  RH – C4RA-6582-A

- Rocker cover washers –(354610- ?40 (?crrett)

- Rocker cover bolts (20364-? 8) (?ird??ll and Ford)

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

To the right we see someone grouped these items together and signed off on them 3-2-65 with the initials RA. In addition to these we see the group identified by the number 5393061

The date dial in the top right shows the form was received on Jan 11th 1965 and initialed by "B"

Other dates from the top of the form

Date typed – 12/30/1964

Date order received at Ford – 12/29/64

Wire Inquiry No. Previous DSO No. – 71-2502

DSO No. (PSO No.) 71-2504 My addition – for this order.

Other hand written initials for sign off "JP" (might be something else) and "WB" then 1-27 and 1-22

At the bottom we have Req Release Date From Fleet: 3/15/65

Order Accepted by followed by a signature and the date 1/16/65

Jeff,

Thank you for your detailed reply. That helps a lot.

Based on that, would it be reasonable to conclude that the cars in DSO 71-2502 did not get their Cobra manifolds at Ford, but the cars on this DSO 71-2504 did get theirs at Ford?

What about the other DSO's for 1965 production, do you have copies of any others? If so, what do they indicate about where their Cobra intakes were installed?

THANKS!
Steve

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 16, 2020, 09:46:56 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 16, 2020, 12:12:26 PM
I don't generally get to the conventions so if you have something you wish to share that should not be posted in public we'll need to work out some other arrangement. You could email me a copy. Or you could just describe what you have in an email. If you just tell me the type of document, date, and pertinent info I'll take you word for it. You don't have to send an actual copy if you don't want to.[/color]

The picture is of the shipping dock at Cleveland Engine plant.

The picture shows just under 100 engines (likely 289's) on shipping cradles and and in racks. A rail car, with its doors open is sitting at the loading dock loaded with empty engine shipping cradles being returned to the plant - waiting to be unloaded. Engines are all small block engines for manual and automatic installation.

In the middle of the picture (likely staged) there is a worker with a clipboard appearing to be checking some detail on an engine.

Since I was describing how two engines identified by the same engine ID sticker/label could be identified as a different or special engine of the same type, there is a small group of engines in the last couples of rows so they are not as clear as other, closer engine combinations. But looking closer you can see all of this group are manual transmission destined engines. Two of these engines have a large label applied to the driver's side valve cover with a large DSO lettering identifying that they are different in some way from all the others in view.  These two also have chrome valve covers. In the row right in front of these two is another 289 with what appears to possibly be aluminum valve covers and the clear plastic bag used to cover the carb may have a longer and different shape than others around it.

In the back of the room there are stacks of exhaust manifolds and other engine parts likely received but not yet entered into stock and eventually to the assembly area

That's my best effort to describe this picture. Was very excited when this one was located

There are no notations on the back side of the 8x10 BW picture other than the picture was provided by Ford's North Central public Relations Office located in Cleveland. Picture is dated (possibly when published) by Cleveland Press Reference Dept. paper April 22 1966. Easy to see the picture was taken allot earlier that that.

Jeff,

Fantastic! That is a great insight into the process.

I know you have many other demands on your time and I sincerely thank you for the time you spent typing that description in order to help educate me.

THANK YOU!
Steve

And this my friends is how a spirited conversation should end...No one mad, no name calling, and a lot of documented info exchanged. Thanks to all involved.

TOB

Notice the people involved. That may be a clue?

Bob,

In your attachment #3 several words got cut off when the picture of that document was taken. I can make a reasonable guess for all but one. Would you please look at the third line of the last paragraph and tell me what you think the missing word is? The whole sentence is fairly long and is a description of how the "near specification" 1966 GT350's will be built at San Jose. Here's an excerpt that contains the missing word, which starts with the letter g.

"... plus a 5 dial instrument cluster with camera case black appliqué and possibly minus the 1965 g_____ assembly."

I'm thinking the word "gauge" is possible, but it wouldn't seem to make sense to add the 5 dial instrument cluster without the gauges. Without access to the full document we may never know for sure, but your best guess would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 17, 2020, 02:19:28 PM
Bob,

In your attachment #3 several words got cut off when the picture of that document was taken. I can make a reasonable guess for all but one. Would you please look at the third line of the last paragraph and tell me what you think the missing word is? The whole sentence is fairly long and is a description of how the "near specification" 1966 GT350's will be built at San Jose. Here's an excerpt that contains the missing word, which starts with the letter g.

"... plus a 5 dial instrument cluster with camera case black appliqué and possibly minus the 1965 g_____ assembly."

I'm thinking the word "gauge" is possible, but it wouldn't seem to make sense to add the 5 dial instrument cluster without the gauges. Without access to the full document we may never know for sure, but your best guess would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Steve

Sorry, I will have to guess along with you as I don't have access to the document anymore other then the picture I posted which I took some time ago. My first guess would be "Gauge" . After reflection if something else comes to mind I will post it.

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 17, 2020, 04:30:15 AM
Jeff,

Thank you for your detailed reply. That helps a lot.

Based on that, would it be reasonable to conclude that the cars in DSO 71-2502 did not get their Cobra manifolds at Ford, but the cars on this DSO 71-2504 did get theirs at Ford?

That is how I read the document and the purpose for spelling out the requirement at the beginning of all the details

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 17, 2020, 04:30:15 AMWhat about the other DSO's for 1965 production, do you have copies of any others? If so, what do they indicate about where their Cobra intakes were installed?

Not many but will look. Doesn't seem that allot of cars retained these list unlike 67 San Jose built Shelbys

Reply in green below:

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 17, 2020, 03:32:32 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 17, 2020, 04:30:15 AM
Jeff,

Thank you for your detailed reply. That helps a lot.

Based on that, would it be reasonable to conclude that the cars in DSO 71-2502 did not get their Cobra manifolds at Ford, but the cars on this DSO 71-2504 did get theirs at Ford?

That is how I read the document and the purpose for spelling out the requirement at the beginning of all the details

Assuming that the cars for 71-2504 were built at Ford the way they were described on the DSO. I only mention that because of my experience in learning that the engine substitution request on 71-2510 was not fulfilled by Ford. Which makes the DSO info a little less reliable than I once thought. Which just emphasizes the need to dig for every scrap of evidence possible in order to make our best guess as to what actually happened. All great fun!

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 17, 2020, 04:30:15 AMWhat about the other DSO's for 1965 production, do you have copies of any others? If so, what do they indicate about where their Cobra intakes were installed?

Not many but will look. Doesn't seem that allot of cars retained these list unlike 67 San Jose built Shelbys

Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 20, 2020, 02:45:03 AM
Assuming that the cars for 71-2504 were built at Ford the way they were described on the DSO. I only mention that because of my experience in learning that the engine substitution request on 71-2510 was not fulfilled by Ford. Which makes the DSO info a little less reliable than I once thought. Which just emphasizes the need to dig for every scrap of evidence possible in order to make our best guess as to what actually happened. All great fun!

All up to interpretation it would seem. Why would Ford not want to do something that they had apparently agreed to do and did do on other occasions? Or if they had not been doing so, recent to the time period mentioned above, why would Ford and Shelby include the text into the approved order forms.

Would want to read or at least know more about the why Ford didn't want to fulfill before I would minimize the importance (though nothing is foolproof) of finalized order form. The registry has placed allot of faith in them over the years.

Big puzzle with allot of pieces or insight not available. This and allot of other searches/research continues :)


Maybe we can get back to the film - post some stills and discuss the other details in it.

Replies in green

Quote from: J_Speegle on April 20, 2020, 05:16:28 AM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 20, 2020, 02:45:03 AM
Assuming that the cars for 71-2504 were built at Ford the way they were described on the DSO. I only mention that because of my experience in learning that the engine substitution request on 71-2510 was not fulfilled by Ford. Which makes the DSO info a little less reliable than I once thought. Which just emphasizes the need to dig for every scrap of evidence possible in order to make our best guess as to what actually happened. All great fun!

All up to interpretation it would seem. Why would Ford not want to do something that they had apparently agreed to do and did do on other occasions? Or if they had not been doing so, recent to the time period mentioned above, why would Ford and Shelby include the text into the approved order forms.

Great questions. And yet odd things did happen with both the paperwork and the cars. Things we may never find the explanation for. Making period photos and videos (like the one that launched this thread) even more valuable.

Would want to read or at least know more about the why Ford didn't want to fulfill before I would minimize the importance (though nothing is foolproof) of finalized order form. The registry has placed allot of faith in them over the years.

Not minimizing the importance of any document - just learning not to take everything at face value. And the Registry has been wrong about a few things over the years too. As the old saying goes, "The only two people I trust are you and me... and I wonder about you." Ha, ha! To their credit, SAAC, like us, is in constant pursuit of the truth - even if it contradicts something previously believed or printed. A good reason to keep the latest edition of the Registry on the shelf. The more they learn the more accurate it gets.

Big puzzle with allot of pieces or insight not available. This and allot of other searches/research continues :)

Agreed. All great fun.

Maybe we can get back to the film - post some stills and discuss the other details in it.

This little discussion is a great example of why hard evidence - as shown in the video that started this thread - is so valuable, and drew my attention to this topic to start with. Seeing what actually happened is much more convincing than making assumptions (even reasonable and logical assumptions) about stuff written on paper.

So getting back to the film sounds good to me.

Steve

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.

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 21, 2020, 05:26:49 AM
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.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 21, 2020, 10:08:02 AM

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 21, 2020, 05:26:49 AM
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.

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 21, 2020, 07:37:56 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 21, 2020, 10:08:02 AM

Quote from: 6s2020 on April 21, 2020, 05:26:49 AM
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.

Thank you, for your reply and insight. :)

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

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.

Quote from: JD on April 25, 2020, 06:00:04 PM
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

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 03:11:37 AM

Quote from: JD on April 25, 2020, 06:00:04 PM
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 ?

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?

Quote from: Cobra66 on April 26, 2020, 03:38:38 PM
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

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 26, 2020, 12:28:02 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 03:11:37 AM

Quote from: JD on April 25, 2020, 06:00:04 PM
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

Quote from: Cobra66 on April 26, 2020, 03:38:38 PM
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.

Im not familiar with Ford installing 1968 GT350 aluminum intakes 🙄

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 04:01:28 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 26, 2020, 12:28:02 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 03:11:37 AM

Quote from: JD on April 25, 2020, 06:00:04 PM
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.   

Quote from: Tired Sheep on April 26, 2020, 04:34:41 PM
Im not familiar with Ford installing 1968 GT350 aluminum intakes 🙄

I would suggest starting another thread to discuss the subject. 

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.

Quote from: Cobra66 on April 26, 2020, 06:49:51 PM
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.

Some of the possible ways to tell the difference between the Ford built Shelbized engine and SA built that I have thought made sense have failed the test of time as more information has come to light. 3 steps forward and 2 steps back kind of thing.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 26, 2020, 04:37:33 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 04:01:28 PM

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 26, 2020, 12:28:02 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 26, 2020, 03:11:37 AM

Quote from: JD on April 25, 2020, 06:00:04 PM
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, that's a very nice explanation. And I appreciate knowing that there would be no difference in how the engine would appear regardless of who did the parts install. That's good information.

And I think I now see what happened to my post and your interpretation of it.

Here's what I wrote:

"I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions."

Here's what you seem to have read after running it through your filter of "assumptions," "reasonable assumptions" and "context."

"I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points on their engine build because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions."

Notice the difference?

Sometimes it's not complicated. Sometimes "assumptions," "reasonable assumptions" and "context" are not needed to draw out some deep, hidden meaning. Sometimes a sentence simply means what the words in print say. That was the case in my post. It was not engine specific.

But it appears to have worked out well that you continued this side bar. Now I know that the engines would have turned out the same whether Ford or Shelby completed the final steps. That was one of several concerns I had. The others are less technical and more personal, and will not be discussed here.

Thanks again for your continuing contributions to my Shelby education.

Steve

i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Quote from: chris NOS on April 27, 2020, 05:45:57 AM
i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 27, 2020, 02:43:11 PM

Quote from: chris NOS on April 27, 2020, 05:45:57 AM
i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

Steve, your flattery compensation check is in the mail . ;D

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 27, 2020, 04:34:51 PM

Quote from: SFM6S087 on April 27, 2020, 02:43:11 PM

Quote from: chris NOS on April 27, 2020, 05:45:57 AM
i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

Steve, your flattery compensation check is in the mail . ;D

Same amount as usual I presume. ;)

Very interesting...yet I wondered about the cut-out of the DSO71-2504 sheet and searched my files. In fact there are some not-available items listed underneath and there are some supplements with it provided back then by the source I obtained them from. I think the information is a bit incomplete, but there may be a reason.
I forwarded them to Howard for SAAC purposes..must have been mid 90ies and he mentioned he'd never seen them. Actually looking at the complete DSO sheets of 71-2504 and 71-2506 they were for R-codes is/was my understanding from the sources original mail.

Quote from: TransamEd on July 19, 2020, 04:55:13 PM
Very interesting...yet I wondered about the cut-out of the DSO71-2504 sheet and searched my files. In fact there are some not-available items listed underneath and there are some supplements with it provided back then by the source I obtained them from. I think the information is a bit incomplete, but there may be a reason. ......

For others he's referring to 65 production rather than 66 ;)

All good just wanted others to be aware that your comments referred to a different year/time period