Upper Scoop Lights On Early '67 Shelbys

Here is some info from a past thread.

http://www.shelbyforums.com/forums/1965-1970-shelby-mustang-gt350-gt500/4005-early-67-gt350-lights-vent-scoops.html?highlight=scoop+lights

 

Also here is a different ad that states "eye level brake and turn indicator lights" at the end of the third paragraph.

 

It certainly benefits all enthusiasts like myself searching for the truth whatever the truth might be ,that you found some pretty substantial provenience for the brake light debate. I am still puzzled why the use of the term safety light in reference to the scoop lights instead of simply referring to them as brake lights. These exact same lights were used on trucks and trailers as running lights and some times refered to as safety lights by the trucking industry.

 

Great work guys!!!!

Mark

 

I'm thinking it's that "Carroll Shelby Presents..." ad is the one I was looking for. Not trying to be hard headed, I just knew that somewhere I'd seen it stated as an Eye level brake and turn signal. Plus, the mentioned road test magazine ad, from back-in-the-day, is pretty good evidence as to how it was wired.
I'll still bet there were exceptions (ah, depending on who was installing them that day) but clearly the scoop lights wired as B & TS must be OK.

 

On an issue like this one, wouldn´t it be possible to get final proof on how things were assembled by someone involved directly with Shelby?

 

Hi to all on this topic.The lamps mounted in the air extractor scoops were intended to be stop/turn indicators.This is simple if you read and remember the article written about the late Fred Goodell,who was a Ford employee that was sent from Michigan to California to help Shelby get his cars built more in line with Fords production methods.When he actually saw how much time was spent to complete each car,and started asking questions about who approved the cars lighting,then visited the folks in Sacramento...he returned to L.A. And informed everyone that inboard headlamps and the modified brake lights were not legal.If they didnot change the design they faced severe penatles.Adding a running lamp is legal but adding a stop lamp is not.The Cougar lamps were already certified for use on a production car..the scoop lights were not.Just another example of how politics can dictate how vehicles are built.The original lamps were made by R.E DIETZ in Syracuse N.Y. They have sold out and the replacement lamps now available @ NAPA stores are dimentionally the same,and the lenses will fit-but they are different,and do not say DIETZ .One more bit of info--Shelby apparently was inspired or influenced by the european car that had its lights mounted up high..can you guess which car it is???

 

If it helps anybody headed in this direction, I purchased a couple of these "NAPA" lights a couple of months ago. I have it on good authority that they are as close to the originals as you're likely to find without sourcing 40 year old stock on a back shelf somewhere. They are actually a Truklite product, but the NAPA # is LIT1115

Hope this helps...Mark

 

A small detail but the scoop light lens reads DZ and not Dietz .

 

Hi again to all ! Just another bit of info. so we can watch for the originals.The Dietz part number is 77-82304-RED I think they were also made in amber and yellow,someone from the industry may know more...
In some of the pictures of # 100 the base appears to be wider and chrome.Makes us wonder if they were useing the same ones all along??
Shelby should get credit for the first high mount stoplamp.Now all cars must have them.

 

Here, more stuff to complicate this:

You might all have seen photos of these scoop lights where they appear to have a chrome ring on the lense where it attaches to the car. And others not. Classic example of production differences. On some cars, the base is just painted over (my car, #0036 is like this) and others, you can clearly see the chrome of the mounting base. Some installer at the scoop supplier carefully masked the base, the part got painted, the masking pulled off, and there you have the plated base showing. Done either way without regard to when or car numbers.

 

Rod, you are exactly right. Both ways are right it was just a production variation that manifested iself because of the way the sccop was masked off. From a cosmetic stand point it looks better done were the metal ring is painted over but again both ways were done in no particular order so both ways are considered correct..

 

Wanted to check in. My scoop lights do not have a trim ring. The lenses do have the DZ. I'll take some pics when I get home showing the lens removed. It is connected to the scoop with a twist of the lens.
Also, I think I've talked to Bob a few years ago about the tail light frames. To not confuse anyone, I'll send some pics of them as well.
I don't have access to the latest SAAC registry, but I believe my car was one of the first shipped....Oct 31, if I recall correctly.

 

Hope this comes through. I haven't added a pic or a link to a post before now.
I've owned this car since '82 and the DZ lens was like that. It certainly doesn't look modified in any way. If these pics come through, I'll send some tail light molding pics.

 

Yours is the same as mine as far as lens and base. Shipped Oct28/66

Randy
_______
67 GT350 #0031
70 Boss 302 Grabber Green project

 

Randy, Glad to know your upper light is like mine....I've only seen one other besides mine without the ring.
I might ought to start a new thread; however, your car is very close to mine.....do your tail light trim rings look like mine? They have holes in them where the small threaded bolts go in fm the inside.
Here's a couple of pics.

 

My tailite frames are different. No holes on the outside. I beleive they have studs that are attached to the frame from the inside with nuts that attach to tighten them.

Randy
________
67 GT350 #0031
70 Boss 302 Grabber Green project

 

My # 1317 has the frames with holes in them.
Texas Swede