[Shelbymustang] FE engine dates ???? may raise some eyebrows

TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
------------------------------------
This may be a dumb question but since I have been away from following of
Ford information releases for 20+ years, Was there a Ford publication of
specific casting numbers for specific cars? Or a complete disclosure of
what all the various casting makings meant? I know SAAC has gained a lot
of old Ford information on our cars. The last Registry shows amazing
records of our cars in some cases.

I had (may still have) a Ford casting book from the 60's that had the
casting number and its corresponding part number. The casting numbers
were not the same as the part numbers most of the time. There were a
number of times that one part number was associated with multiple
casting numbers. I don't remember that Ford specifically numbered
pieces to match a car like GM serial number matches. I think that GM
only numbered the blocks. SO if the casting numbers were not the same as
the part number in any number of cases, how can we be sure that it's an
"original" piece unless we know that the car was never worked on. We are
now talking 40 years. How could anyone swear that a "restored" car was
absolutely original? Although I don't ever remember changing anything, I
could not swear that my 69 has the absolute original out of the factory
pieces on it even having been in my possession for the last 38 years.

Building FEs in the 60's where we were pulling the original engines in
most cases, we saw a lot of castings. I remember that it seemed as
though Ford used castings from a stack and if more castings came before
the stack was completely depleted that they sometimes used the newer
castings first. Grabbed what was easiest maybe? At times you would find
an older casting number on a newer vehicle. This was before "just in
time" inventories and adherence to FIFO accounting practices. Different
times.

We were not concerned as cars were cars and this whole "original
matching castings" wasn't important in that era. Unfortunately we
didn't know at the time that these cars would ever be as valuable as
what they are today. I remember selling a beautiful Boss 429 for $3,000
and I hate to think of all the Shelbys that we sold for less than that.
I think Shelby did the same thing with race cars. There was a SAAC
article a few years ago about the cut off wrecked part of an FIA Cobra
frame that had been turned into a whole car but the problem was that
made two FIA Cobras with the same serial number. Quite a legal battle
when you realize how much money was at stake for the real FIA car.

How many factory race cars had the same "first" engine through a couple
of years of use? Wasn't it more important to the factory to have the car
ready for the next race than the "right" engine? How many private team
cars had multiple engines on hand to keep the cars competing? Yet aren't
these the most valuable cars today? So if "non-matching " number cars
are the most valuable, has the resale market place created a false
premise about cars for sale? Why is it that a street car with a
different engine is supposed to lose value?

I guess the real question is are we putting too much importance on
something that really shouldn't be? "Matching numbers" Who was it that
said "I built these cars to drive, not sit in a garage."

Susan

>From: ORLMUST (AT) aol (DOT) com
>Subject: [Shelbymustang] Shelby 428 CJ question
>To: shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com, CampByers (AT) comcast (DOT) net
>
>9/12/2006
>
>Shelby Fans,
>
>We are trying to locate a correct date code 428 CJ block for a 68 Shelby
>Convertible.
>
>The car was built Late April. WHAT would the ideal date code period be for
>the engine block ?
>
>Pete Geisler
>Orlando Mustang
>407 688 1966
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
ShelbyMustang mailing list
Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
Membership Administration http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang

 

TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
------------------------------------
There are many differences between original unrestored, restored to original and a rebuilt driver vehicle just as there are many differences between street cars and race cars. What has a higher value, a low milage unrestored 1970 Boss 302, a restored to original 1970 Boss 302 or the actual 1970 Boss 302 Championship Trans Am race car that was driven by Parnili Jones. The Trans Am race car would be worth more due to it's spot in racing history and the Bud Moore Boss Trans Am rece cars were not Boss 302 Mustangs when they left the factory.

If someone is going to rebuild of restore a car to original why not take the effort to make it correct now. Correctling later would cost a lot more. Otherwise why not just throw a 390 FE engine in the car? It can look just like a 428 from the outside.

Some people only care about driver collector cars and others like to sweat the details. To each their own I say.

Jim Seisser

-----Original Message-----
>From: Susan Cooper <susancooper (AT) hughes (DOT) net>
>Sent: Sep 12, 2006 11:17 PM
>To: shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
>Subject: [Shelbymustang] FE engine dates ???? may raise some eyebrows
>
>TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
>------------------------------------
>This may be a dumb question but since I have been away from following of
>Ford information releases for 20+ years, Was there a Ford publication of
>specific casting numbers for specific cars? Or a complete disclosure of
>what all the various casting makings meant? I know SAAC has gained a lot
>of old Ford information on our cars. The last Registry shows amazing
>records of our cars in some cases.
>
>I had (may still have) a Ford casting book from the 60's that had the
>casting number and its corresponding part number. The casting numbers
>were not the same as the part numbers most of the time. There were a
>number of times that one part number was associated with multiple
>casting numbers. I don't remember that Ford specifically numbered
>pieces to match a car like GM serial number matches. I think that GM
>only numbered the blocks. SO if the casting numbers were not the same as
>the part number in any number of cases, how can we be sure that it's an
>"original" piece unless we know that the car was never worked on. We are
>now talking 40 years. How could anyone swear that a "restored" car was
>absolutely original? Although I don't ever remember changing anything, I
>could not swear that my 69 has the absolute original out of the factory
>pieces on it even having been in my possession for the last 38 years.
>
>Building FEs in the 60's where we were pulling the original engines in
>most cases, we saw a lot of castings. I remember that it seemed as
>though Ford used castings from a stack and if more castings came before
>the stack was completely depleted that they sometimes used the newer
>castings first. Grabbed what was easiest maybe? At times you would find
>an older casting number on a newer vehicle. This was before "just in
>time" inventories and adherence to FIFO accounting practices. Different
>times.
>
>We were not concerned as cars were cars and this whole "original
>matching castings" wasn't important in that era. Unfortunately we
>didn't know at the time that these cars would ever be as valuable as
>what they are today. I remember selling a beautiful Boss 429 for $3,000
>and I hate to think of all the Shelbys that we sold for less than that.
>I think Shelby did the same thing with race cars. There was a SAAC
>article a few years ago about the cut off wrecked part of an FIA Cobra
>frame that had been turned into a whole car but the problem was that
>made two FIA Cobras with the same serial number. Quite a legal battle
>when you realize how much money was at stake for the real FIA car.
>
>How many factory race cars had the same "first" engine through a couple
>of years of use? Wasn't it more important to the factory to have the car
>ready for the next race than the "right" engine? How many private team
>cars had multiple engines on hand to keep the cars competing? Yet aren't
>these the most valuable cars today? So if "non-matching " number cars
>are the most valuable, has the resale market place created a false
>premise about cars for sale? Why is it that a street car with a
>different engine is supposed to lose value?
>
>I guess the real question is are we putting too much importance on
>something that really shouldn't be? "Matching numbers" Who was it that
>said "I built these cars to drive, not sit in a garage."
>
>Susan
>
>>From: ORLMUST (AT) aol (DOT) com
>>Subject: [Shelbymustang] Shelby 428 CJ question
>>To: shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com, CampByers (AT) comcast (DOT) net
>>
>>9/12/2006
>>
>>Shelby Fans,
>>
>>We are trying to locate a correct date code 428 CJ block for a 68 Shelby
>>Convertible.
>>
>>The car was built Late April. WHAT would the ideal date code period be for
>>the engine block ?
>>
>>Pete Geisler
>>Orlando Mustang
>>407 688 1966
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ShelbyMustang mailing list
>Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
>Membership Administration http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
>Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang


________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

_______________________________________________
ShelbyMustang mailing list
Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
Membership Administration http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang

 

TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
------------------------------------

The phrase "numbers matching" really is a term used primarily by the GM
crowd. Most of the GM cars, you can't distinguish what motor came with the
car by the vin number. Therefore, without proper paperwork, if the numbers
on the block, i.e. vin stamp, matched the cars, then you could prove the car
really came with that motor originally. Fords and Mopars however are
different. The vin number has an engine code which tells you what the car
came with. A g in a 69-70 mustang tells you, it's a Boss 302. A j in a 1968
mustang tells you 302 4V. An R in a 70 'Cuda tells you this babys got a
HEMI, and so on. Me, personally, I don't believe the mopars or Fords are as
big of a deal if the motor is not the original as long as it is correct for
what the car came with. I do look at GM products differently. As long as a
69 SCJ Mach1 has the correct SCJ motor, I'm OK with that. As long as the
428P.I. in the 67 Shelby is correct, I'm satisfied. By correct, I mean
correct date codes and casting numbers, since the ford vin# is known not to
be present on certain motors and was not present on others it should have
been. Just my $.02.

Mike McCullough





----- Original Message -----
From: "ecj" <ecj (AT) peoplepc (DOT) com>
To: <shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Shelbymustang] FE engine dates ???? may raise some eyebrows


> TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
> ------------------------------------
> There are many differences between original unrestored, restored to
> original and a rebuilt driver vehicle just as there are many differences
> between street cars and race cars. What has a higher value, a low milage
> unrestored 1970 Boss 302, a restored to original 1970 Boss 302 or the
> actual 1970 Boss 302 Championship Trans Am race car that was driven by
> Parnili Jones. The Trans Am race car would be worth more due to it's spot
> in racing history and the Bud Moore Boss Trans Am rece cars were not Boss
> 302 Mustangs when they left the factory.
>
> If someone is going to rebuild of restore a car to original why not take
> the effort to make it correct now. Correctling later would cost a lot
> more. Otherwise why not just throw a 390 FE engine in the car? It can look
> just like a 428 from the outside.
>
> Some people only care about driver collector cars and others like to sweat
> the details. To each their own I say.
>
> Jim Seisser
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Susan Cooper <susancooper (AT) hughes (DOT) net>
>>Sent: Sep 12, 2006 11:17 PM
>>To: shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
>>Subject: [Shelbymustang] FE engine dates ???? may raise some eyebrows
>>
>>TheCarSource.com Shelby Mustang List
>>------------------------------------
>>This may be a dumb question but since I have been away from following of
>>Ford information releases for 20+ years, Was there a Ford publication of
>>specific casting numbers for specific cars? Or a complete disclosure of
>>what all the various casting makings meant? I know SAAC has gained a lot
>>of old Ford information on our cars. The last Registry shows amazing
>>records of our cars in some cases.
>>
>>I had (may still have) a Ford casting book from the 60's that had the
>>casting number and its corresponding part number. The casting numbers
>>were not the same as the part numbers most of the time. There were a
>>number of times that one part number was associated with multiple
>>casting numbers. I don't remember that Ford specifically numbered
>>pieces to match a car like GM serial number matches. I think that GM
>>only numbered the blocks. SO if the casting numbers were not the same as
>>the part number in any number of cases, how can we be sure that it's an
>>"original" piece unless we know that the car was never worked on. We are
>>now talking 40 years. How could anyone swear that a "restored" car was
>>absolutely original? Although I don't ever remember changing anything, I
>>could not swear that my 69 has the absolute original out of the factory
>>pieces on it even having been in my possession for the last 38 years.
>>
>>Building FEs in the 60's where we were pulling the original engines in
>>most cases, we saw a lot of castings. I remember that it seemed as
>>though Ford used castings from a stack and if more castings came before
>>the stack was completely depleted that they sometimes used the newer
>>castings first. Grabbed what was easiest maybe? At times you would find
>>an older casting number on a newer vehicle. This was before "just in
>>time" inventories and adherence to FIFO accounting practices. Different
>>times.
>>
>>We were not concerned as cars were cars and this whole "original
>>matching castings" wasn't important in that era. Unfortunately we
>>didn't know at the time that these cars would ever be as valuable as
>>what they are today. I remember selling a beautiful Boss 429 for $3,000
>>and I hate to think of all the Shelbys that we sold for less than that.
>>I think Shelby did the same thing with race cars. There was a SAAC
>>article a few years ago about the cut off wrecked part of an FIA Cobra
>>frame that had been turned into a whole car but the problem was that
>>made two FIA Cobras with the same serial number. Quite a legal battle
>>when you realize how much money was at stake for the real FIA car.
>>
>>How many factory race cars had the same "first" engine through a couple
>>of years of use? Wasn't it more important to the factory to have the car
>>ready for the next race than the "right" engine? How many private team
>>cars had multiple engines on hand to keep the cars competing? Yet aren't
>>these the most valuable cars today? So if "non-matching " number cars
>>are the most valuable, has the resale market place created a false
>>premise about cars for sale? Why is it that a street car with a
>>different engine is supposed to lose value?
>>
>>I guess the real question is are we putting too much importance on
>>something that really shouldn't be? "Matching numbers" Who was it that
>>said "I built these cars to drive, not sit in a garage."
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>>From: ORLMUST (AT) aol (DOT) com
>>>Subject: [Shelbymustang] Shelby 428 CJ question
>>>To: shelbymustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com, CampByers (AT) comcast (DOT) net
>>>
>>>9/12/2006
>>>
>>>Shelby Fans,
>>>
>>>We are trying to locate a correct date code 428 CJ block for a 68 Shelby
>>>Convertible.
>>>
>>>The car was built Late April. WHAT would the ideal date code period be
>>>for
>>>the engine block ?
>>>
>>>Pete Geisler
>>>Orlando Mustang
>>>407 688 1966
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ShelbyMustang mailing list
>>Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
>>Membership Administration
>>http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
>>Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang
>
>
> ________________________________________
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> ShelbyMustang mailing list
> Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
> Membership Administration
> http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
> Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006
>


_______________________________________________
ShelbyMustang mailing list
Send email to ShelbyMustang (AT) thecarsource (DOT) com
Membership Administration http://thecarsource.com/mailman/listinfo/shelbymustang_thecarsource.com
Group Web Page http://www.thecarsource.com/shelbymustang