Posts by J_Speegle_old

Quote from s2ms

Jeff, I'm fairly certain the scheduled SJ build date for 6S1757, Ford VIN 178xxx, is March 29. Do you have any block casting date or engine assembly date data for cars near that?

Not sure how any of us can be certain of real finish dates on these cars but that is a never ending discussion at this point. Especially when the date you posted is about that the door tag would have had on it. and we know those were off most of the time looking at the 67-up data we have.

Only thing I have from anywhere near that point (still collecting and recording allot of data points) is the 05C date car mentioned above

Sorry

From a spread sheet I'm playing with here are some examples of spreads from San Jose cars, since the spread would be different IMHO different plants due to shipping distances

Oh - of course the build dates are the projected ones - off by up to three weeks in either direction

Build date...............Head date

19K........................K4

05C........................A31

10B........................M9 * M17

19B........................L15 & L15

Heads were not cast before for the blocks in all examples

Hope this helps

Quote from 6hypo5conv

Thanks, Cobraboy!! I appreciate it! but isn't there a simpler way to post on this site that I support? Jeff, How did you do your pics?

I have an account with Photobucket. Upload them there (from my computer once they are resized), once uploaded copy the location of where they are located (from below the picture there) then insert that address into my post and it just appears

Quote

.................. Mustangs were built without any quality control. I just reciently seen a unrestored two digit shelby with the issue above, sorry but in my opinion thats how they are.

Just because the cars were unrestored doesn't mean they are as they were when they rolled off the line;) Plenty of examples and documentation (original travelers/inspectors forms found in cars) showing that when something did not pass inspection it was redone.

Have met a number of inspectors from the plants and I'm sure they earned their pay as much as any of us believe we do.

Not to say they were all perfect - but allot better than some owners would make them out to be IMHO

[Blocked Image: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Shelby%20Specific/65PeriodinfronofHighperfornance.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Shelby%20Specific/65LemansStripesatShelby.jpg]

Just opinions from the original cars I've seen and photographed

PS sorry for the big pictures

Quote from BoS

Exactly how long should it be on a 65-66?

Thanks, Bo

Since your likely referring to San Jose built Shelby’s - ribbed IMHO

Quote from CharlesTurner

Not to change subjects... but does anyone know if the ribbing on these and other hoses identify the manufacturer?

Like the heater hoses I believe they did use the number of ribs to id the maker so they could deal with issues or recalls

As for what to deduct for and what gets by, there is allot of difference in interpretation especially since MCA has never tried to put everything in the rules that can be deducted for or wrong(been told over and over that we can't fit everything there so my understanding for 25 or so years is that we have never tied the hands of the judges or limited them to just what is on the judges sheets. We want and need each judges experiences and knowledge to help better the hobby, to improve art of restoring while maintaining the value of the awards given out by the organization.

If we do not stress the importance of getting the right parts we cannot get reproducers to make correct parts or improve the sub standard ones (one of the reason I made original examples available to Jack to produce the over flow hoses)

I for one would (and have) deducted for the hoses since correct is right IMHO and not a concours verses Thoroughbred mindset. I see little difference between the ribs on hoses and (for example) the ink numbers on radiator hoses and deductions IMHO would fit the definition as outlined in the rules that read

“Reproduction parts are acceptable for restoration as long as they fit, look and function like the original OEM parts “

But these differences on interpretation and outlook are some of the reason’s I believe Charles changed this year’s judges meeting to focus on.

Quote from 65HiPo

My Hi-Po has a set of original "FoMoCo" floormats (front and back) that don't have any horse figure on them. They have the ribs and are shaped just like the repops. Has anyone ever seen a set of these?

Yes ran across a couple in a wrecking yard a couple weeks ago

[Blocked Image: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Indiviual%20Parts/Floormat-NoHorsetop.jpg]

And here is an example of a later generic mat

[Blocked Image: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Indiviual%20Parts/FordAccessmat.jpg]

Or cleaners like Ajax and bleach. Seen a few go the hospital after than mixture

Found the link on another forum but thought all would benefit from the information.

Figured posting here is as good as any place. I want to first note that I normally take every internet warning of "your cars going to explode" and similar warnings with a gallon of salt and common sense, but ran a cross this in a post today and it appears to be a first hand report.

Read it for yourself

http://www.brewracingframes.com/id75.htm

Quote from RPM

Those are great pics of the June 65 car but why are the dots on the bottom springs light blue?

Believe those were posted to show and example of the spray method of marking - not to suggest that K codes came with a light blue daub.

There were many different colors and combinations more as the years pasted. Color codes made it quick and easy for line workers to identify what spring belonged on which car as identified on the buildsheet.

Agree with Charles- from all the paint marks and daubs I've seen and have pictures of - it just depends on where the mark is and who placed it. There is a good mix of both

Some of the writting was also applied IMHO with the paint ball marker - which were real popular at the time.

You can still purchase these - basically a small plastic squeeze bottle with a tip and a ball at the end. Used commonly to mark parts at wrecking yards.

Mad4HiPos- Yes I recall your having one of each (rear spring marks) Yours is not the only one one of the original drive tests shows an early Shelby with one of each also. Just must have been that time period when San Jose had received a pallet of each and the mixed and matched

We even have one restorer that does one of each - allot Hate when each becomes a cookie cutter of another

The original post mentions Hipo heads not the A or C code ones. Since it took Calif till mid April before it caught up with the Hipo/K code these heads (Hipo with thermactor ports) came installed on only a hand full of cars.

No 66 Hipo California car sold to the public was required to have Thermactor originally - though the state has tried many times since then to retrofit these cars will all sorts of systems

Seen allot of stripes on San Jose cars - once you get to the end of 65 production. Especially into 66 , though there is some intermixing for a while.

Just my observations

Wonder if the red fastback has ever turned up or been identified. Guess I need to ask Howard next time

Isn't muriatic acid "pool acid"?

Use to use that in a plastic garage can to strip and derust parts in the "old days"

How was it determined that the car in TX was one of/was the Shelby mule?

Just asking as I've heard a few owners claiming they had the car(s)

Quote from manleytom

Can a 1967 K code have a block stamp of C6AE-6015-C 6M21

Thanks! Tom

Yes if the car was built after that date.

For San Jose I would rather see a dark heat treated finish,

Years ago we were interviewing one of the guys that laid out the plant (drawing the layout, out for us) and he drew a rectangle on the page and stated " theirs were the phosphated front coil springs were kept"

Of course the next question was "why did you call them - phospated" since the common thought of the time was that they were painted. It was odd that of all the details he remember - he recalled that one. But that is what interviews with these people are like. A little detail here another one there,

Assume that they were not phosphated just that they looked that way. And the dark heat treated finish can look very much like IMHO the dark magnesium phosphate

Quote from s2ms

San Jose, late March 66 build date. Don't know the exact scheduled build date since GT350's didn't have door tags but I believe it's March 29.

Interesting - would have expected stripes by that point in the year. Maybe a pallet got shoved off into a corner at Easton

Quote from 65shelby

Good News......

NPD sells these already stamped with the info. you provide them - mainly your build date. ...............

Unfortunately the "filled out one" is correct IMHO for a much later Dearborn car. The style, method and even design of the decal differed between plants and year to year.

Just a heads up they do not look anything like the one posted above (from an early Dearborn car)

Quote

.........I know through my private conversations and emails with Jim Smart how he feels and what he thinks about the car. I'm not sure if you have seen the articles i posted a while back, but i will post them again. If i should believe and take thoughts and opinions from anyone, Jim Smart would be the go-to guy (beings that he wrote the book, literally). Wouldn't you agree??..........

Don't read all the online post Jim does (sorry Jim if you read this

I'll make a point of discussing yours and the earlier fastbacks we he's around next time and have lunch.

Not sure (and I'm certain he will agree - know him for allot of years) that there is a single "go to guy"

Good luck with the car - haw every you choose to modify it