SAAC Forum

Marti got that information from the Registry.

Originally, I thought the flat “Cougar” (named decades ago) trim was used first in production
My new THEORY is different. It is always evolving as new information comes to light.
I should add, there is no right or wrong answer here. I am still gathering data and seeking photos for more evidence. 

Years ago, I saw Greg Kolasa’s book with the photos and captions.
I asked him why he thought the flat “Cougar” trim parts were used later. He made three great points.
-1st the photo evidence; such as car #00723.
-2nd the timing; the ’67 flat ‘Cougar” trim came out after the ’66 Mustang Hi-Po trim.
-3rd cost and time savings; why would SAI go backwards in time to get the older Ford parts.
The flat “Cougar” parts were newer, easier to get from Ford, and would save assembly time and money

All were very good points…However, I didn’t just take Greg’s word. I’ve been looking deeper for years.
 

Trim #1; Brochure V-738-2 and #00176. Very thin, flat, and highly polished (or chrome plated).
These parts also appear to be on very early production cars, not nearly as thick as the flat “Cougar” trim parts.
They appear hand fabricated and very, very thin
Day one #00003 – #00018
Day two #00002 – #00019
Day three #00024 – #000031 (maybe…we see a handmade appearing flat part on #00031)



Trim #2; 1966 Mustang Hi-Po trim, production part.
Trim is cut about 60-65% down from top with visible top screw needed.
Has a tighter cut-out around exhaust and an inner area at the top covering the valance cut-out
#00004; SAI 10/3166
#00017; SAI 10/31/66
#00050 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#00100 vintage magazine photos, no completion date
#0187; SAI 12/22/66


Trim #3; 1967 flat “Cougar”, production part
No inner section to cover the valance cut-out, thicker depth by approximately 4-5X
Requires a slight higher cut-out in the valance to fit the part
#00751; SAI completion date 2/13,
#00705; SAI completion date 2/17
#00702; SAI completion date 3/31
#0723; SAI completion date 4/3
#00881; SAI completion date 4/13
#000742; SAI completion date 5/11

Rich,
1)l may be wrong but I don't believe Greg believes that about the early cars any more. Some of the theories about the later cars may be correct.
2)The last time Greg and I discussed this topic was earlier this month, April 6th when I provided details and photos. I would be glad to share them with you.
3)I am not new to this, if you asked me, which you didn't, I would have given you my opinion from collecting data, owning and restoring these cars for over 30 years.
Dave

66 Tripple black Fairlane GT Conv, 53 Studebaker Champion, 05 Carrara S, 07 Tripple black GT500 Conv.

I bought rear replacement springs from Virginia Mustang and they were way too soft. I ended up putting the originals back in the car.
Dave

Which side? Early or late car?
You can email me if you feel more comfortable. dmathews@prodigy.net
Dave

Just wondering. Is it  possible imming 1965 has a panel not original to that car. I ask, because if my car 1551 was built 6 days later than imming 1965, and mine is a flat panel, does it not seem an earlier car would also be flat?

#1551 was completed 4/18/67 and would have a flat tail light panel.
Dave

A car completed at SAI would have a flat tail light panel.
Dave