Wanted 65 Hipo axle bumper.

acman63_old · February 25, 2009 at 2:52 PM

he misunderstood, he thought you were asking about the 3rd member rebound plate that bolt to the rear end. I still have the one that welds to the body. Im putting it on Ebay this weekend if you dont want it. email me at jim@shelbyparts.com if you want me to send it for inspection JC

Hi-Po · June 20, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Please except my apology, after finaly getting to check my friends 1966 - a code factory GT fastback it did indeed have the variation #2 factory spot welded to underside of the trunk pan. The plate had a triangler piece of rubber bolted to it. OK so can anyone tell me what they did for 1965 GT cars built between febuary and august? Did they use the variation #1 early plate?

Hi-Po · June 20, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I also wanted to know , if you ordered a factory dual exhaust car in 1966 on an a- code non GT car, did you also get the variation #2 plate? again sorry for speaking out with out doing my own research first. Tony's book is great , but you can draw the wrong conclusion sometimes, thank you very much, Domenic R. Mamone

CharlesTurner · June 21, 2009 at 7:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I also wanted to know , if you ordered a factory dual exhaust car in 1966 on an a- code non GT car, did you also get the variation #2 plate? again sorry for speaking out with out doing my own research first. Tony's book is great , but you can draw the wrong conclusion sometimes, thank you very much, Domenic R. Mamone

Dual exhaust on an A code 65-66 was not a line item on the order sheet. Dual exhaust could be had by ordering a 65-66 as a GT or a K code.

Hi-Po · June 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Caspian65, can you tell me, or anyone else who may know- If you purchased a real 1965 A- CODE GT mustang , built between febuary, and august of 1965 , did the car have the early variation #1 HI-PO plate ,LOWER PAGE 89 FOURTH EDITION welded above the rear's floor pan? Any help would be appeciated, thank you Domenic r. Mamone

RalphJr · June 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM

I have an April '65 Dearborn K and it has the later style larger plate - like shown in the 1st red and the white photos in this topic thread. I have traded correspondance with a couple of factory GT owners before and after my car - K and A code - all have the same plate.

I hope this helps a little.

CharlesTurner · June 21, 2009 at 9:06 PM

GT production probably didn't actually start until the mid to end of March '65. A code GT's would have had 8" rears, so they would have had the snubber version with holes to mount the rubber bumper.

67kcodeGT_old · June 22, 2009 at 6:13 AM

So,have these been reproduced or not yet? Have 2 67's that have them and would like to start making them if not.

CharlesTurner · June 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM

There are no official reproductions of this piece. Mainly a few restoration shops that have fabricated a few.

Personally, I would not care to see it reproduced as the snubber plate is usually how to tell a fake from a true dual exhaust car.

Edited by - caspian65 on 06/22/2009 09:52:51

Hi-Po · June 23, 2009 at 8:36 PM

caspian65, or any one else who know's. Please turn to page 89 of the fourth edition . On real 1965 GT A code, mustang's built between march and august 65, would they have the standard plate shown on the top of the page, or would they have the early variation #1 hi-po, k code plate, shown on the bottom of the page? thank you Domenic R. Mamone

CharlesTurner · June 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

caspian65, or any one else who know's. Please turn to page 89 of the fourth edition . On real 1965 GT A code, mustang's built between march and august 65, would they have the standard plate shown on the top of the page, <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Absolutely not.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

or would they have the early variation #1 hi-po, k code plate, shown on the bottom of the page? thank you Domenic R. Mamone

A code GT's just have a normal K code style snubber. Here's one on a late May '65 Dearborn GT (A code). You can barely see it in the pic, but the rubber bumper is bolted to the plate like it would have been on a single exhaust car.

http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/vert/1…_3_05%20007.jpg

67kcodeGT_old · June 24, 2009 at 6:08 AM

On 67's your car had to have a 9" rear end from the factory to have the differant stamped plate.

Greg

CharlesTurner · June 24, 2009 at 7:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

On 67's your car had to have a 9" rear end from the factory to have the different stamped plate.

Greg

In '67, factory dual exhaust was only offered on K codes and S codes, so that pretty much takes care of the 9" requirement!

Hi-Po · June 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Caspian65; Sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but what i have been trying to ask is; Thier was a time frame on early 1965 A-code factory GT mustang's Such as in April 1965, when all that was available was the early variation#1 HI-PO style plate. Now can anyone tell me ,did they ever use this variation #1 early style hi-po plate, which is on the lower page of the fourth edition book , or did they just use the standard mustang plate ,see top of page 89 . On factory A-code early 1965 GT cars? Lastly, i have heard from an MCA judge that production on 1965 real GT mustang's started sometime in Febuary 1965 . Mid - March 1965 would have only given them two week's to get them ready? dose anyone out thier have a real Febuary 1965 GT ? thank you very much Domenic R. Mamone

CharlesTurner · June 24, 2009 at 9:34 PM

An early '65 GT would have simply had the same axle bumper plate as a K code. The rear build-up of the car where the dual exhaust reinforcements would have been carried over from K codes to A code GT's.

The first dealer price list to include the GT option was the second price list printing for '65 and had "April 1965" on the top. Dealers had to receive these sheets before they knew the new options were available. I suspect that the price sheets made it to dealers around late March '65. If you look at the Jim Smart/Haskell In Search of Mustangs listing, there are just a handful of cars listed as GT's with February dates. I suspect those were most likely GT clones as the authors had no way to verify every car. GT cars appear with more consistency starting at the end of March '65 and then going forward.

cobraboy · June 25, 2009 at 1:22 AM

My car is a K GT built 13th APRIL 1965, it has the bumper plate shown on page 90. Hope this helps

Hi-Po · June 26, 2009 at 5:57 PM

It sound's like buy the time they were offering factory 1965 A-code GT mustang's, that they were already using the variation#2 hi-po style plate. My car is a 1965 Dearborn, K- code fastback built on November 20th. It has the early Variation#1 style plate. Thank you very much for all your help , Domenic R. Mamone

cobraboy · June 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

This is kind of confusing, would your car have been built in Nov '64 ie 1965 model year, so you had the #1 plate and been an earlier build to mine. As I have the #2 plate and am April '65 still 1965 model year but later. does this make sense?.

I have the rubber on the plate on the 3rd member but have 3 holes in the #2 body plate, should I have a rubber bolted to the #2 plate instead?

Ralph where is your rubber ? on the body or the 3rd member ? Thanks

Edited by - cobraboy on 06/27/2009 10:19:25

Edited by - cobraboy on 06/27/2009 10:23:55

Hi-Po · June 27, 2009 at 8:06 PM

My car was built in November 1964, so it's an early 1965 K-code fastback.The early #1 variation plate started with 1964 and a half, and carried part way thur 1965. Your car was built 5 months later. The dual exhaust buck eyes, are also further back, as they used this arvin style exhust. Hope this helps, Domenic R.Mamone

RalphJr · June 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

My rubber bumper is actually on the body - bolted into the outside holes - appeared to have been that way from the factory or very early in the cars life - when I removed it for the restoration there was freash primer on the body under the bumper.

I don't have a bumper on the axle, but the correct axle plate.

Not sure why - maybe they were running low on parts that day - our cars were built the same week - a couple of days apart. Maybe the worker on the line made a mistake?

Participate now!