SAAC Forum

It is great to read about our Shelby Research Group here on the SAAC forum. Nice to read our 'Z' stamped theory on Ford's takeover.
There are many other reasons that led us to believe Ford took over SAI in very late April / early May 1967.
The 'Z' stamp on the VIN plate is just one of the reasons...

For example, there is the letter that discusses Shelby American getting split into 3 separate companies around this time. 
Another letter, discusses Ford opening up sales from the 90 franchised dealer networks to over 1000 non franchises Ford dealers around the country...
to move more units out of inventory.

Then there is the invoice from Shelby to Ford to get paid before the change took place on 'Loss of Use" of company cars.
Then we see the DSO group number change. Originally it was '71', it changed to '84' then to '89' about this same time.
Each change reflected a point in time and Ford's relationship. I'm sure the list goes on, but you get my point.

Years ago I heard the theory that the 'Z' stamped VIN meant that a car should have an outboard grille and lights.
After collecting hundreds of photos of every '67 VIN plate I could find, that theory dissolved.
I was also tracking VIN plate photos by the noted registry completion dates. I discovered the added 'Z' stamp appears on cars on 4/27/67
... not one day before that.

Like most everything with '67's, there are one or two exceptions to every rule. We found one car completed after 4/27/67 with a 'Z' stamp.
Thanks to Jeff Speegle for sharing that one! The outboard grille / lights start appearing on cars around the second week of May.
That was a couple of weeks after the 'Z' stamping started. It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't hold water anymore.

Another theory was the cars with a 'Z' Stamping were not to be scavenged for parts. That one faded away too.
It was mentioned here on the forum; Why not simply put a card on the dash?
Yes the "Z' stamp would be more permanent, but who's going to open and close every hood to check?

Recently, I'm hearing a theory the 'Z' stamps were added to cars that received the upgraded Mustang 390 brake pads.
(By dealers that already had cars?)
There was a Service Bulletin issued on March 1st 1967, to dealers, that the brakes pads should be changed to the new 390 on any customer complaints.
Ford was going to change to these other brake pads on Shelby's after car '1422'. That work was under warranty, not a recall of any kind.
It doesn't explain all the cars with the 'Z' the stamping after that '1422' VIN and onward until the end of '67 production.
Nobody would need to track those units. Also since that service bulletin was issued March 1st it was many weeks before we start to see the 'Z' Stamps!.

"98 SVT" I've noticed you quoting our SRG posts before, but I don't think you're signed up on any of our websites...are you?
We would welcome anyone who wanted to participate and help add information of any kind to the topics.
The links to our sites are in my signatures.

So many years ago I was at Brian Styles' mancave looking at #0139. I remember him telling me many things about 67s I never knew and one was Ford's takeover according to notes. Now I see the research group saying a much later date than is on Brian's page and what he told me face to face? I understand as more info comes out on any subject opinions/history can change on things. So what's up with the "Oct. 01... Unfortunately, fiberglass fitment, supply issues, and financial problems plague the '67 operation from the start.  Due to these "launch problems" Ford Motor Company steps in and takes control.  SAI's district code is changed from 71 to 84. Dr. Ray A. Geddes takes over purchasing (and possibly operations as a whole).. I copied that just now from  http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/research/timeline.asp . I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying and what I have heard before from Brian who directed me to his fantastic site many years ago.

I have been to Brian's wearhouse & home and actually appraised a car for him in the past. He's a really good guy with an unbelievable plethora of Shelby history that he has worked very hard at putting together over the years and it's a shame that there were folks here on the forum that chased him off the forum and eventually prohibited him from coming onto the forum (banned). Some of those very same folks are still here today and is the reason why he is not here (as well as several other very prominent Shelby folks).

Quote from: stephen_becker on August 02, 2022, 10:13:27 AM
I have been to Brian's wearhouse & home and actually appraised a car for him in the past. He's a really good guy with an unbelievable plethora of Shelby history that he has worked very hard at putting together over the years and it's a shame that there were folks here on the forum that chased him off the forum and eventually prohibited him from coming onto the forum (banned). Some of those very same folks are still here today and is the reason why he is not here (as well as several other very prominent Shelby folks).

I like Brian. I always enjoy conversing with him on Shelbys and other muscle cars. Is there anyone who has put more time and effort and money into researching 67s? 

Quote from: Richstang on August 01, 2022, 08:05:12 PM"98 SVT" I've noticed you quoting our SRG posts before, but I don't think you're signed up on any of our websites...are you?
We would welcome anyone who wanted to participate and help add information of any kind to the topics.
The links to our sites are in my signatures.

I don't have any information the would move your research forward. Any questions that I think of have already been answered. I've been around these cars for nearly 50 years and heard 99% of the rumors and presumed facts. I think pointing people to your research is a great value to Shelby history and helps dispel some of the lore around the man and cars. I also don't do social network sites.

Shelbyman1970,

I imagine you enjoyed your visit to Brian's man cave. He has changed several cars in the past few years.
Most are extra special versions that deserve a second look.
He doesn't talk much about them, but is always happy to answer any question I have about any of his cars.

The information I've noted in the first post, is combined with the last several years of our research.
It is current as of August 2022

Oct 1, 1966 was the approximate start of '67 production. Brian may have been summarizing the entire year in that website post.
I can't speak for him,, so you would need to contact him and ask if you have any specific / further questions from his convertible site post.

'Z" stamps did NOT appear on VIN plates until April 27th 1967. That is more fact than theory.
We have not seen any VIN plates stamped with the 'Z' before that date.
That is the point in time where we believe Ford took over SAI completely
Ford was always involved in SAI operations, but only to lend a helping hand up to that point in time.

We know Charlie McHose (Ford Employee) helped to design the 1967 Shelby. SAAC has published articles to confirm his efforts.

We also know Ray Geddes was sent to LAX (another Ford employee) to aid SAI in resolving problems at the start of production...
And to oversee the entire operation, so it ran more smoothly as production ramped up for '67.

If you want a deeper look into the entire run of the 1967 Shelby, our SRG sites, individually keeps up with new discoveries.
We dig deep into most every area of interest.  As mentioned before, the links are in my signature.

Brian's ban from the forum is old news and in the past.
He was invited back a few years ago, but not in any official capacity, such as a direct email or call. Just hidden inside of a post back then.

The 1967 convertible site is fantastic site and focused on that car, #00139.
I believe Brian does update that site from time to time with new info.

Anyone other than me find it ironic that the Ford takeover day was 4/27? 

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 02, 2022, 07:34:55 PM
Anyone other than me find it ironic that the Ford takeover day was 4/27?

Luck of the draw? The 28th was the last working day of the month. They may have wanted all the paperwork done and back in Dearborn by Friday. The whole takeover is said to be caused by CS not repaying a startup loan he got from Ford in 1962. It was said to have a 5 year life and that none of the target dates had been met. The Cobra made its debut at the NY Auto show in April 62. The reaction to the car at that show may have been the trigger for Ford to loan CS the money (on May 1st?) to set up production. I had heard that May 67 is when the note was due so the end of April for the takeover makes sense.

Someone, someday may get access or stumble upon all the CS/SA/Ford paperwork. I suspect that each program had a separate contract. They could be for - develop X car - race x car for x race or season - produce x number of x cars - He probably had a personal service contract where Ford could use him for ads, commercials, pitching suppliers/dealers, speaking at dinners, etc.

Brett, yes that all makes sense to me.   

Anyone ever heard what the initial Ford loan $$$ was?  If it was just to build Cobras, I'd guess it was not a huge number, but still a pretty big amount for 1962...so maybe $250,000? Then more as the GT350 program began.

My theory not based on any facts and would relate to Ford taking over and designating the Z cars as Ford property. 

The Ford model designation for Mustang is Z. As in C7ZZ, C6ZZ, etc. Could have been a way for them to track cars owned by them (Ford) or cars not paid for by Shelby. 

Jon

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 02, 2022, 09:48:06 PM
Brett, yes that all makes sense to me.   

Anyone ever heard what the initial Ford loan $$$ was?  If it was just to build Cobras, I'd guess it was not a huge number, but still a pretty big amount for 1962...so maybe $250,000? Then more as the GT350 program began.

I heard numbers 3 to 5 million. (Ford spent over 25 million total on the GT40 program alone) You have to remember it was used to rent space, buy parts from Ford and other suppliers, buy cars from AC, pay shipping costs, pay workers, buy transporters, set up a dealer and network of dealers, take the whole show on the road to races and flying cars and teams to Europe, advertising, etc. At the rate SA hemorrhaged money there was no way the total could be paid back from selling 1,300 Cobras. CS should have gotten some sort of clause on what the PR value of their efforts were. This was basically starting starting from scratch. I find it interesting he didn't have the money to pay them back but did have enough money tucked away to buy a 4 story office building and lets not forget the Figueroa warehouse the race tires "paid" for.

I wouldn't doubt $3-5million was what it took to launch the GT350 program, LAX, etc.  But all that just for the Cobras?  Wow...how at $5999 (or whatever each car sold for on average) could anyone expect to make their money back? The gross sales on 1300 Cobras would only be $8million, at best.  Yeah, then factor in the materials, shipping, factory, employees, rent, taxes, etc etc etc.

Looks like CS should've had a smarter CFO than he did. If it WAS $3-5 million in 1962 dollars he got, that should've been enough $$ in an efficient operation at the time (something equaling like $30-50million today... or more.)

I'm not a mathematician, nor do I play one in my dreams, but I'd like to be handed that much $$ to stick some Ford V8s into ACs and race a few of them.  :P

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 02, 2022, 09:48:06 PM
Brett, yes that all makes sense to me.   

Anyone ever heard what the initial Ford loan $$$ was?  If it was just to build Cobras, I'd guess it was not a huge number, but still a pretty big amount for 1962...so maybe $250,000? Then more as the GT350 program began.

One paragraph from the August 1, 1962 agreement between Ford and Shelby reads:

"In order to conduct the business contemplated by Shelby, it is estimated to require approximately $35,000. per month during the first year of operation. Currently, Shelby is unable to provide the capital required."

Quote from: A-Snake on August 03, 2022, 10:48:32 AM

One paragraph from the August 1, 1962 agreement between Ford and Shelby reads:

"In order to conduct the business contemplated by Shelby, it is estimated to require approximately $35,000. per month during the first year of operation. Currently, Shelby is unable to provide the capital required."

All other petty minutia aside, and right on target date wise, that paragraph pretty much sums it all up and leaves little to the imagination.


Bill

Being an owner of a "Z" stamped car, this makes sense to me that Ford would want to account for cars manufactured after a certain date.  And, it is more feasible than the previous explanations given this new information.

Also, the "Z" appears to be a definite add on after the vin was applied to the tag, given the size and different font. 

Greek

Quote from: Bill on August 03, 2022, 11:24:52 AM

Quote from: A-Snake on August 03, 2022, 10:48:32 AM

One paragraph from the August 1, 1962 agreement between Ford and Shelby reads:

"In order to conduct the business contemplated by Shelby, it is estimated to require approximately $35,000. per month during the first year of operation. Currently, Shelby is unable to provide the capital required."

All other petty minutia aside, and right on target date wise, that paragraph pretty much sums it all up and leaves little to the imagination.


Bill

This is August and interestingly enough the same month when Shelby American was incorporated (8-17-62). Was this some new/additional business? Which gets us back to what seems like May 1 for the takeover. With LeMans looming and that being what Henry wanted his people concentrating time I would thing the August and not the May date would make more sense unless there was April/May contractual obligations that had to be met.

Quote from: greekz on August 03, 2022, 01:56:27 PM
Being an owner of a "Z" stamped car, this makes sense to me that Ford would want to account for cars manufactured after a certain date.  And, it is more feasible than the previous explanations given this new information.

Also, the "Z" appears to be a definite add on after the vin was applied to the tag, given the size and different font. 

Greek

I believe we have talked about the 'Z' Stamp getting added after the VIN plates were already on the cars.
Someone mentioned impressions on the inner fender from a heavy handed stamping on their car.


Let me add another detail about the 'Z' stamps and our SRG theory about Ford's takeover...
As mentioned in my first post, Shelby sent an invoice to Ford for the 'Loss of Use' on company cars...it was issued on 4/26/67...
That was the day before I noticed the 'Z' stamps appearing on VIN plates of completed cars.
Ford also opens up the sales channels to noted 1,000 non franchised Ford dealers in a letter also dated 4/26/67.
Officially, the Ford takeover likely happened on May 1st, 1967.
I believe Brian noticed that in some document changes, but I forget the complete discussion as to why he thought it was that date.


Another important detail was with the accounting depts. at both SAI and at Ford
The 'Profit/ Loss' of SAI in the three years of Shelby Mustang production and operations were not good.
-In 1965 SAI showed a 'Loss' of about $300K
-In 1966 SAI made up that loss with a 'Profit' of about $400K (no doubt helped by the Hertz deal)
-In 1967 SAI showed a 'Loss' of $750K.
That last big $$$ 'Loss' most certainly led up to Ford stepping in with a complete takeover.


The 'SRG' Google Group is not a social media site. It is just another place to discuss details specific to 1967 Shelby's.
Non sense posts are not appreciated and are dealt with swiftly.

The SRG Google Group is independent of the 'SRG Facebook' and the SRG 'MeWe' sites.
Each has their own following and offer unique benefits to our research efforts.
Regardless, we all benefit from the shared research.

Rich: Great details and info, thanks!   

Any guesstimate as to how much CS paid himself per year out of the SA coffers?  (Separate from any FoMoCo-paid personal appearance fees).

I wonder if that amount was considered too big by Ford, it might be another motivation for the takeover. 

So none of the former Shelby employee's have ever been able to shed light on the Z stamps, seems they'd be in the know ?

QuoteLooks like CS should've had a smarter CFO than he did. If it WAS $3-5 million in 1962 dollars he got, that should've been enough $$ in an efficient operation at the time (something equaling like $30-50million today... or more.)

This thread brings up trangential questions, such as SA/Ford contract details. Was SA supposed to make payments to Ford during the life of the loan or was there a balloon payment instead?

Mr. Side-Oilers post about CS salary is a good question. And he's right about having a more talented CFO.

Were 65-67 Shelby Mustangs sold at a profit? I.E. Did the sales price cover development costs?

One take away for me is that Shelby had the talent to form SA, but he didn't grasp a financial/business long term picture. Of course there were Ford demands and market place changes so maybe there was no long term SA future. And possibly working with Ford might have been a be careful what you wish for.

Quote from: 68krrrr on August 04, 2022, 12:19:18 AM
So none of the former Shelby employee's have ever been able to shed light on the Z stamps, seems they'd be in the know ?

Many years ago (9 or 10), I had a conversation with Chuck Cantwell while we were looking at two 67's on the show field at the AACA museum fall SAAC show. Chuck could not answer as to why there was a difference between the two.

Bill

If Ford took over around the date you indicated, would not all the cars completed after the April date have a "Z" on the VIN tag?  The reason I ask is while reviewing the Derailment Cars, not all of them have a "Z".  Six of the fourteen have a "Z" and the others do not.  Completion dates are in June for twelve of the fourteen, and two in May.

This inconsistency would make accounting for cars built after Ford took over difficult, if that was the reason for the "Z".

Just asking.

Greek

Quote from: greekz on August 04, 2022, 03:49:01 PM
If Ford took over around the date you indicated, would not all the cars completed after the April date have a "Z" on the VIN tag?  The reason I ask is while reviewing the Derailment Cars, not all of them have a "Z".  Six of the fourteen have a "Z" and the others do not.  Completion dates are in June for twelve of the fourteen, and two in May.

This inconsistency would make accounting for cars built after Ford took over difficult, if that was the reason for the "Z".

Just asking.

Greek

Maybe for orders that had come in and were sold by SA but not finished before the takeover. SA was always behind on production which is one of the problems Ford wanted addressed.

Greek,
What are you basing your facts on.
I know you and Anthony have been studying the derailment cars for years and I'm a late comer on them.

We know the train rail cars held 15 Shelby models and only 14 have been identified.
Of the 14, I have photos of several of the cars and ALL of them show 'Z' stamps.
Many of the other cars have been noted as unknown owners in the registry.
Registry info of 'Z' stamps is typically owner supplied. We can't trust that info without photo proof

You mention 8 cars not having the "Z' stamps...
Which cars are those?
Do you have photos of any of those 8 VIN plates or any of those 8 cars?
Are they original or reproduction VIN plates?




Van,
I recall reading Carroll Shelby was paid a guaranteed 50K per year from Ford.
There is no paperwork found to date, that notes him taking money from the company.
As the president, I assume he took a salary. The Ford guarantee might be paid to him as the owner.




Anyone,
I would think Ford made the investment in SAI (1962) as a way to cut into GM's Corvette sales.
They certainly knocked them down on the race tracks, to help sell Ford cars on Monday
I believe Ford looked at concepts to replace the Cobra in the mid to late 60's for that reason.
They may not have been concerned about the bottom line, but a profit would have been nice.
Ford also avoided liability by having SAI, an official manufacture, taking on that burden.

Excellent info, Rich.  Thanks! 

CS making $50k/year from Ford is about what I would've guessed...but in addition (IMO) there was probably some more $$ coming to him through SAI.  Many ways to do that, of course.   

Quote from: Richstang on August 04, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
Anyone,
They may not have been concerned about the bottom line, but a profit would have been nice.

The Mustang had a difficult time being approved. One reason cited was that they were still stinging from the failure of the Edsel. The coffers may have also been a little low with all the Ford GT expenses. I wonder if the stock holders ever brought up the Race/PR budget - the GT40 program was a 100% because Henry II got his ego bruised by Enzo.

Good question, Brett, about the stockholders. 

As a kid in the '60s, I was so excited each year when my dad would get his broker to send him the car company annual reports. I was expecting them to read like a car magazine, with track tests, engineering tech articles, and secret future stuff at the proving grounds. But nope. Mostly boring numbers and photos of the Board of Directors.

The reports were extremely slim to non-existent on racing.  Most pages were devoted to balance sheets, graphs, news of divestitures, foreign expansions, factory improvements and cost-cutting measures, and maybe some charitable work.

Plus the requisite photos of the current-year pretty cars on the cover, and perhaps a shot or two of the year's big seller and a future car.

Not much in there for a Shelby-loving kid. In fact, I can't recall even a mention of CS or the SAI program or their vehicles, ever.
Does anybody?

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 04, 2022, 07:01:57 PM
Excellent info, Rich.  Thanks! 

CS making $50k/year from Ford is about what I would've guessed...but in addition (IMO) there was probably some more $$ coming to him through SAI.  Many ways to do that, of course.

When the GT500 was reintroduced CS started at $1,000 per car to use his name. In the end it became a 5 year 12 million personal services contract and they worked him like a dog to get every nickel out of the deal.

Rich,

I do not know if the vin plates are reproductions or not as I have no pictures.  The information is according the the latest 1967 Registry.

I have attached my updated spreadsheet.

Greekz, excellent work on the spreadsheet. 

Those 14 cars, all purchased by the railroad, were probably the easiest 14 cars SAI ever sold. 

Wonder if SPRR paid full retail for them? (After all, they were damaged goods.)  :P

Quote from: greekz on August 04, 2022, 07:42:02 PM
Rich,

I do not know if the vin plates are reproductions or not as I have no pictures.  The information is according the the latest 1967 Registry.

I have attached my updated spreadsheet.

When I click on the link in post #28, I get a screen that says "welcome to numbers"  ???

Mike

Me too. Keep clicking. It showed up then.

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 04, 2022, 07:53:22 PM
Greekz, excellent work on the spreadsheet. 

Those 14 cars, all purchased by the railroad, were probably the easiest 14 cars SAI ever sold. 

Wonder if SPRR paid full retail for them? (After all, they were damaged goods.)  :P

Thanks,

It would be nice to know.  I have seen only one other car from the derailment and it had front end damage from the repairs that I saw.

Quote from: Side-Oilers on August 04, 2022, 07:53:22 PMWonder if SPRR paid full retail for them? (After all, they were damaged goods.)

My parents had a friend who was a Union Pacific RR cop. He said his biggest problem was employee theft. When a shipment got broken into they had to pay retail for what ever was damaged/stolen plus a fee to the shipper covering the delay of their product. He said if someone stole a bottle of shampoo they had to buy the whole pallet and eat the shipping costs then pay a % for each day the shipment was delayed while they investigated. This was in the 60s and he said it cost the RR about $1,000 for that bottle of shampoo. They had a warehouse of stuff in LA where anyone could go bid on the damaged stuff that was left.

Quote from: greekz on August 04, 2022, 07:42:02 PM
Rich,

I do not know if the vin plates are reproductions or not as I have no pictures.  The information is according the the latest 1967 Registry.

I have attached my updated spreadsheet.

Thanks for your list Greekz!
It matches exactly as I have the derailment cars noted...6 cars with a 'Z' stamp and 8 unknown.
The last (15th) car may have been completely totaled and thus not listed as a Sante Fe sold car.
You may have posted this list before as it looks familiar.

I believe you have mis-interpretted the registry footnotes.
A car is only noted as having a 'Z' stamp when it is known, maybe even confirmed!

If nothing is written about a "Z" stamp in the footnotes it is NOT known if it has the 'Z' stamp or not.

The first car on your list is #02363. Check out those footnotes!
They state the car was 'MISSING' the Shelby ID tag...not, NO 'Z' stamp.

I think the other 7 cars on you list will follow suit as unknown.
Our SRG theory still stands with Ford's complete takeover in late April / early May.

Quote from: Richstang on August 04, 2022, 11:25:31 PM

Quote from: greekz on August 04, 2022, 07:42:02 PM
Rich,

I do not know if the vin plates are reproductions or not as I have no pictures.  The information is according the the latest 1967 Registry.

I have attached my updated spreadsheet.

Thanks for your list Greekz!
It matches exactly as I have the derailment cars noted...6 cars with a 'Z' stamp and 8 unknown.
The last (15th) car may have been completely totaled and thus not listed as a Sante Fe sold car.
You may have posted this list before as it looks familiar.

I believe you have mis-interpretted the registry footnotes.
A car is only noted as having a 'Z' stamp when it is known, maybe even confirmed!

If nothing is written about a "Z" stamp in the footnotes it is NOT known if it has the 'Z' stamp or not.

The first car on your list is #02363. Check out those footnotes!
They state the car was 'MISSING' the Shelby ID tag...not, NO 'Z' stamp.

I think the other 7 cars on you list will follow suit as unknown.
Our SRG theory still stands with Ford's complete takeover in late April / early May.

Rich,

I did some reading as you suggested.  After reading the entire footnote, I see the unknown and VIN tag items.  Should have read to the end.  Usually, the "Z" information is contained in the first few sentences.

My assumption was SAAC, having copies of the invoices would know if the "Z" was part of the VIN.  That got me to checking my own invoice copy and what do you know, there is no "Z" preceding the VIN.  Maybe SAI did not think the "Z" was actually part of the VIN, but as you say, a designation for accounting the cars completed after the takeover.

Even though my invoice does not have the "Z", maybe sometime during its early life the car was inspected by the California DMV and the "Z" was added to the VIN for registration purposes.  The earliest registration car I have is 1976, and the car was titled with the "Z" as part of the VIN.

Thanks again for your efforts in researching the history of these cars.

Greek

Quote from: greekz on August 06, 2022, 11:41:25 AM

Quote from: Richstang on August 04, 2022, 11:25:31 PM

Quote from: greekz on August 04, 2022, 07:42:02 PM
Rich,

I do not know if the vin plates are reproductions or not as I have no pictures.  The information is according the the latest 1967 Registry.

I have attached my updated spreadsheet.

Thanks for your list Greekz!
It matches exactly as I have the derailment cars noted...6 cars with a 'Z' stamp and 8 unknown.
The last (15th) car may have been completely totaled and thus not listed as a Sante Fe sold car.
You may have posted this list before as it looks familiar.

I believe you have mis-interpretted the registry footnotes.
A car is only noted as having a 'Z' stamp when it is known, maybe even confirmed!

If nothing is written about a "Z" stamp in the footnotes it is NOT known if it has the 'Z' stamp or not.

The first car on your list is #02363. Check out those footnotes!
They state the car was 'MISSING' the Shelby ID tag...not, NO 'Z' stamp.

I think the other 7 cars on you list will follow suit as unknown.
Our SRG theory still stands with Ford's complete takeover in late April / early May.

Rich,

I did some reading as you suggested.  After reading the entire footnote, I see the unknown and VIN tag items.  Should have read to the end.  Usually, the "Z" information is contained in the first few sentences.

My assumption was SAAC, having copies of the invoices would know if the "Z" was part of the VIN.  That got me to checking my own invoice copy and what do you know, there is no "Z" preceding the VIN.  Maybe SAI did not think the "Z" was actually part of the VIN, but as you say, a designation for accounting the cars completed after the takeover.

Even though my invoice does not have the "Z", maybe sometime during its early life the car was inspected by the California DMV and the "Z" was added to the VIN for registration purposes.  The earliest registration car I have is 1976, and the car was titled with the "Z" as part of the VIN.

Thanks again for your efforts in researching the history of these cars.

Greek

Hi Greekz.

I don't believe any SAI douments had the Z stamp noted on them. If they did the registrar would have included that in the footnotes.
Since we believe the state DMVs all run independantly and individually depending on the person who inputs that info...
A car may or may not have the 'Z' noted as part of the VIN...technically it is not part of the VIN, just stamped in front of it.

Thanks for bringing this up. It was worth looking into as a possibilty.

Rich

Quote from: Richstang on August 07, 2022, 10:06:27 AM
Since we believe the state DMVs all run independantly and individually depending on the person who inputs that info...
A car may or may not have the 'Z' noted as part of the VIN...

When new the DMV put in what was on the MSO the dealer gave them. Over the years the Z may have been added to some when having them inspected for re-registration or transfer thinking the omission was an error. I had to have the title corrected on an original Mini Cooper S. Utah DMV had listed the VIN on the title with the number 5 instead of the correct S. The CA inspector drug out his magnifying glass and said yep that's an S.

Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on August 07, 2022, 11:23:41 AM

Quote from: Richstang on August 07, 2022, 10:06:27 AM
Since we believe the state DMVs all run independantly and individually depending on the person who inputs that info...
A car may or may not have the 'Z' noted as part of the VIN...

When new the DMV put in what was on the MSO the dealer gave them. Over the years the Z may have been added to some when having them inspected for re-registration or transfer thinking the omission was an error. I had to have the title corrected on an original Mini Cooper S. Utah DMV had listed the VIN on the title with the number 5 instead of the correct S. The CA inspector drug out his magnifying glass and said yep that's an S.

your story reminds me of KK2039 69 B9 I owned. Prior owner had to get a title for it as his was stolen so he had police come out. with a dirty inside windshield they mistook the "Q" (9F02Q198868) for a 0 so when I bought the car it had the "0" instead of the Q. My car was one of the ones they didn't change the dash tag or stamp the Z over the Q on 69 B9s. I was able with my Eminger invoices and Ford manuals to get my DMV without the car present to change the 0 to a Z and do it for free(I claimed their error). Original KK Door sticker and door tag confirmed as well as the "obvious" a "Z" B9. Well today the car sports a Z dash tag. It appears someone made up a fake Vin tag for the car. I hope they saved the original Q vin tag but doubt it. I thought it was a cool part of it's history(first Eminger report shows Q going to KK then the second a Z going to the Ford dealership). I still have the original paperwork showing our DMV changing the title from an 0 to a Z.