Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder .. as usual the car is worth what someone will pay .. opinions vary with each owner .. I like all years but 68s .. thats prob why I pieced a lot of them out years ago Dan --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
I love all of the Shelbys. If I had to choose a favorite year though, it's easy. 1965! Since the first time I drove one, there has never been any doubt. Thank you, Mike McCullough 405-760-6732 405-330-4535 www.worldwidemusclecars.com ----- Original Message ----- From: RSANTER (AT) aol (DOT) com To: ronald.robertson (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca ; randall.paul (AT) randallpaul (DOT) com ; Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com ; GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions why decide I want one of each bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 4/10/2006
the 65 has long been tops in my book because it was pure shelby. it was a race car for the street. in 66 ford put the pressure to tone it down and shelby cut some corners for cost cutting. I will say if I have to choose one shelby in the world I could own it would have to be one of the original 66 shelby convertables. it would be a toss up between the blue one because it was shelbys car or the red car cus I like it. bob
I love the look of the '67s and I agree that it is a major factor in their popularity right now. The really are eye catching and Nick Cage definitely fueled the fire. The early cars are much lighter and I'd figure appeal to the purist. Has anyone scaled their '65-6 or '67 recently? I'd love to know what the real scaled weights were (and not Shelby American press figures). Thanks, LS --- "Ronald. Robertson" <ronald.robertson (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca> wrote: > Interesting comments. As one who drove their Shelby to SAAC meets, local > shows and cruise nights, I chose the 1969 for completely different > reasons. I am 6' 4" tall and cramming myself into a 1968 where I had to > hunch over to see out the windshield was a non starter. The seats in the > 1966/67 are low back, and they are a killer on long trips. Having gone > through that with our 1966 Mustang, I opted for the 1969. We entered the > Shelby family with the idea that if we kept the Shelby for 5 years and > came out of it with 5 years of enjoyment and our investment intact we > would be satisfied. When we sold it, we were very pleasantly surprised > that our investment had increased. The styling of all year Shelbys is, > in my opinion great, but for me, the comfort and drivability of the 1969 > was the deciding factor. As Randall said, "isn't it great that we are > all different?" > Respectfully > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Randall Paul > To: Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com ; GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; > shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:41 AM > Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions > > > Not to argue or discredit your view but I think all of them have their > interesting attributes. I love the 66 styling. The 67 and 68's were also > very nice. I had my choice of all and turned down the 68 and chose the > 69. Ok its ford. But it is just a more refined car in my view in > styling interior appointments and certainly handling. But is.nt great > we are all different. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com > To: GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; > shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:04 PM > Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions > > > I agree with Lee, and to add a few more distictions on why 67 500s > are attracting alot of interest, (something I figured out 20 years ago) > is that it was the first year for a big block Shelby, it was the only > year to have a dual 4 bbl carb set up. As mentioned, it was the last > year of the California built Shelby, and the only year to use a unique > taillight set up, (a Cougar taillight without the chrome bezel). Think > about it, 65-66 Shelbys used regular Mustang taillights, and 68-70's > used a T-Bird taillight. > I have been into 67 Shelby's for over 20 years. In my opinion it is > the best and baddest looking Shelby that was made. As a friend once said > to me, it looks like a Mustang on steroids. > > Kenny > www.exhaust.tv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I am not saying that the trend will stay in tact. It is just an explanation of why it is that way today. I love the feel of the 1966 for driving/ The 1969 is without a doubt the most comfortable and plush of the Shelbys. Each person has their own likes regarding styling. I am just saying that the second and third body styles have more differences from the standard mustangs. The 1969's are very good for use as an everyday car with the comfort and accessories. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055 -----Original Message----- From: LS <lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> To: Ronald. Robertson <ronald.robertson (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>; Randall Paul <randall.paul (AT) randallpaul (DOT) com>; Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com; GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com; shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com Sent: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions I love the look of the '67s and I agree that it is a major factor in their popularity right now. The really are eye catching and Nick Cage definitely fueled the fire. The early cars are much lighter and I'd figure appeal to the purist. Has anyone scaled their '65-6 or '67 recently? I'd love to know what the real scaled weights were (and not Shelby American press figures). Thanks, LS --- "Ronald. Robertson" <ronald.robertson (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca> wrote: > Interesting comments. As one who drove their Shelby to SAAC meets, local > shows and cruise nights, I chose the 1969 for completely different > reasons. I am 6' 4" tall and cramming myself into a 1968 where I had to > hunch over to see out the windshield was a non starter. The seats in the > 1966/67 are low back, and they are a killer on long trips. Having gone > through that with our 1966 Mustang, I opted for the 1969. We entered the > Shelby family with the idea that if we kept the Shelby for 5 years and > came out of it with 5 years of enjoyment and our investment intact we > would be satisfied. When we sold it, we were very pleasantly surprised > that our investment had increased. The styling of all year Shelbys is, > in my opinion great, but for me, the comfort and drivability of the 1969 > was the deciding factor. As Randall said, "isn't it great that we are > all different?" > Respectfully > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Randall Paul > To: Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com ; GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; > shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:41 AM > Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions > > > Not to argue or discredit your view but I think all of them have their > interesting attributes. I love the 66 styling. The 67 and 68's were also > very nice. I had my choice of all and turned down the 68 and chose the > 69. Ok its ford. But it is just a more refined car in my view in > styling interior appointments and certainly handling. But is.nt great > we are all different. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com > To: GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; lashdeep (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; > shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:04 PM > Subject: Re: Shelby Market Opinions > > > I agree with Lee, and to add a few more distictions on why 67 500s > are attracting alot of interest, (something I figured out 20 years ago) > is that it was the first year for a big block Shelby, it was the only > year to have a dual 4 bbl carb set up. As mentioned, it was the last > year of the California built Shelby, and the only year to use a unique > taillight set up, (a Cougar taillight without the chrome bezel). Think > about it, 65-66 Shelbys used regular Mustang taillights, and 68-70's > used a T-Bird taillight. > I have been into 67 Shelby's for over 20 years. In my opinion it is > the best and baddest looking Shelby that was made. As a friend once said > to me, it looks like a Mustang on steroids. > > Kenny > www.exhaust.tv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
In a message dated 4/13/2006 7:05:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gt350hz (AT) aol (DOT) com writes: > I love the feel of the 1966 for driving/ Me, too. I'd still take one for a daily driver, with just a few additions--rear window defogger, FM radio...and realistically, more comfortable driver's seat...still, nothing that couldn't have been "owner-added" in the late '60s, right? Dave 6s1261 5s003
In a message dated 4/13/06 10:12:31, DLen1261 (AT) aol (DOT) com writes: << Me, too. I'd still take one for a daily driver, with just a few additions--rear window defogger, FM radio...and realistically, more comfortable driver's seat...still, nothing that couldn't have been "owner-added" in the late '60s, right? >> >>>I've logged a LOT of miles in my clone. Recaro SE seats (reportedly no longer made, alas) were probably the single best improvement I made to the car. I don't miss a rear window defogger, although a few times in England it was an issue. As for radio? Why on earth would you want to listen to a radio when the Windsor Symphony Orchestra is playing under your right foot? Days after buying the car, I removed the standard AM radio and chucked it :>) Mike
MIke, you make a great point about liking all of the Shelbys. The 1965's were the raw vision and the remainder morphed into a more marketable car. They are really all different which may be one other feature of their uniqueness. All of the years have distinct differences from 1965 to 1969 (70's only slight differences). I would need more garage space to expand my collection. Lee 66 #869 69 #2055
