Messages

Profile at front of trim is different on 68

Actually, the 1967 Mustang part seems to be exactly the same, at least as on early 1968 cars.  I am not sure about later 1968 cars.  I had an early 1968 Mustang convertible that had a ding on one side of those.  Back when those cars were easy to find in junkyards, I found a 1967 Mustang convertible and pulled that part to put in my car.  It sure looked exactly the same as the 1968 part on the other side.

My guess is yes, simply because the rest of the interior was in place.

And then they just cut the metal Mustang part off near the top and added the Shelby interior quarter panel part to the cut-off remainder of the Mustang part?

You mean, like these?

Great photos.  I did not disassemble or look down in there, but it looks like they just cut the Mustang part off near the top?  And it looks just the same as the '67 Mustang part, and maybe earlier years too.  That should make it fairly easy to find an original Mustang part and cut it, or use the repro and cut it.

Has to be from 68 mustang convertible. Coupe and 67 different

I always thought that those were the same for 1964.5-1968 Mustang convertibles.  What is unique to the '68?

If they really are the same, a quick Google search pulls up this repro:

https://www.kentuckymustang.com/product-p/14830.htm

Just looking at a bunch of photos of 1967 and 1968 Mustang convertibles, it looks like the button snap for the top boot at the top rear may be absent on this part on some 1968 cars.  But it looks like it may be a running production change (maybe early versus late production?), like the rear quarter panel reflector, the dash knee pad, the windshield pillar pads, the redline tach, etc.  I am not sure if there is an early/late model year pattern to it.  In any event, I do not see any other differences, so it would seem that either type might be correct, and the repro would seem to work since it would be pretty easy to weld up the hole for the button snap, if you need to match the other side.

Has to be from 68 mustang convertible. Coupe and 67 different

I always thought that those were the same for 1964.5-1968 Mustang convertibles.  What is unique to the '68?

If they really are the same, a quick Google search pulls up this repro:

https://www.kentuckymustang.com/product-p/14830.htm

The incorrect assumptions are yours.

Specific engines were federally certified before 1968 production started and did not change for Shelbys during the course of the model year. The vast majority of all 68 Shelbys were built after January 1, those that were built prior still had the smog controls.

This is a documented fact. Factory build sheets show the same engine configurations during the entire production run from September 1967 to July 1968.

Maybe not federally mandated, but Ford adopted to the coming changes so they did have to change during production.

Unfortunately, your internet research does not match the reality of production. The only 1968 Shelbys built w/o smog were GT350 automatics.

What someone did after the fact is irrelevant to the historical correctness of the cars.

Nope.  You are missing the point.  You questioned how California could require the removal of federally required smog equipment.  Whether the car was a 1967 or 1968 model does not matter, as long as it was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  I have personal family experience with a 1968 Mustang in Southern California that, while it was still required to be smog inspected in connection with the annual registration renewal, was required to be smog retrofitted.  The Thermactor air holes were plugged and the remaining equipment was removed prior to smog inspection approval.  The car had a manufacture date of November 1967.  Was the car no longer "original"?  Under concours standards, yes, but it was "legal" in California after the retrofit.

I bought a 67 FB 289 3 speed car that the owner bought less M/T and bought a 67 Cougar 390 4 speed out of a junkyard down in San Diego. He had the 390 rebuilt and installed. Painted the car and had it smog inspected with the working 390 smog on it. He brought the car back from California and then sold it due to a divorce. He said the smog worked as it passed emissions. That was 1988. Since the engine was fresh(guy even drove the car back to Michigan from SD) the smog came off as easy as you can pull one off an FE. Like I said in a previous post I sold it to a 67 GT500 owner. So if I'm reading your post correctly how would this Mustang be put through the smog test and not make the owner retrofit his car before issuing a registration? The only reason I know about his test is that I asked him why it was still on there and he said it had to be to pass emissions in Calif.

1988?  Assuming your friend remembers correctly, by that late date you can probably attribute it to the tech's unfamiliarity with the then 21-year old engine, or he/she did not do his/her job correctly.  Well before 1988, our cars had been retrofitted following vehicle inspections.  I had a buddy with a 1967 Mustang who also had the same retrofit applied (Thermactor removed, holes plugged).  But my experience is with only one California county.  I have no idea what was going on in other counties.

To elaborate on this point, while I have no way of proving that that was done in all California county air districts at all times, I have anecdotal evidence that it certainly was done in at least some county air districts for at least some period of time to reduce NOx emissions.

So according to your source removing the system helped reduce emissions?  Could you provide the date, section number of the document or other details for that?

Like typical government systems you can get to very different answers for the same question based on interpretation on the same day

Yes, you are right in that there were possibly inconsistent enforcement and compliance methods over time and by location.  This is particularly likely since California regulated air quality standards by county air districts and their varying corresponding levels of compliance with the ambient standards for criteria pollutants such as NOx.  Also, the smog science was very new in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and went through a gradual evolution, including the later consensus that the early Thermactor setup did more harm than good in terms of NOx emissions.  See Reply #8 and Reply #11 in this thread.

An interesting discussion, and it seems relevant to the question of what point in time to choose whether to reinstall Thermactor on a car.  If the time chosen is "as new" for a California car, then yes, it clearly would have been on there.  But the only point I was trying to make is that there are legitimate explanations as to why Thermactor might not be on the car, other than just that a previous owner did not like it.

I liken the removal of the Thermactor system to the gas tank protective cover that was installed over the original gas tank of our Pinto back in the day.  Both measures were taken to address a defectively designed original factory part.  You may disagree, but that is a matter of opinion.

I get your point, but the "appropriate/acceptable" smog retrofit is pretty simple:  Thermactor equipment removed, Ford plugs installed in air holes in smog heads.  It is my understanding that was what was done, or at least what was supposed to be done.

Since we're discussion leaving cars as they were required to be retrofitted, removing the system was not a retrofit IMHO respectfully you off by allot.

Removing the system and placing 8 plugs in the heads was not the legal nor ok retrofit. That was simply a modification not a retrofit.

To elaborate on this point, while I have no way of proving that that was done in all California county air districts at all times, I have anecdotal evidence that it certainly was done in at least some county air districts for at least some period of time to reduce NOx emissions.

I get your point, but the "appropriate/acceptable" smog retrofit is pretty simple:  Thermactor equipment removed, Ford plugs installed in air holes in smog heads.  It is my understanding that was what was done, or at least what was supposed to be done.

Since we're discussion leaving cars as they were required to be retrofitted, removing the system was not a retrofit IMHO respectfully you off by allot.

Removing the system and placing 8 plugs in the heads was not the legal nor ok retrofit. That was simply a modification not a retrofit.

For Calif, for example, it was illegal to remove the system and over the years the stated would require more systems, parts and modifications to try and stay in compliance to a changing and rising emission standard. To day the systems are still required though the not as enforced as it has been in the past though the legislation continues to try and reinstate the annual or bi-annual tests every year or two

Depending on the year there things as simple as the car kit while other period could require you to drill a 1/4-1/2" hole in the intake manifold to retrofit a check valve and an aftermarket control system if the factory emissions had been removed or in some cases register a car that originally didn't have a Calif emission system. Some years part of the retrofit required a closed element air cleaner in place of an open element air cleaner.

Communicated and tried to work with the state BAR over the decades trying to even just let us put back the original systems and let it be, but as stated, over the decades, that was not enough so many owners and hot rodders could be found going to great lengths to skirt the system.

Have a fair collection of the state emission manuals and testing manuals. When the state requirement for bi-annual testing was ended I was one of three speakers that spoke to the committee exploring the possibility and started to get the change passes. So, I think I have a fair grasp of the history of the effects of state requirements on our specific historical vehicles and I think I have some experience in the subject

Sorry, but first-hand experience tells me that you are incorrect about what happened with California emissions over the years, and with regard to the current law for 1975 and older vehicles.

I understand your point regarding the "slippery slope" of modifications, but when we are dealing with a legally-mandated retrofit to be able to drive the car on public roads in the State of California, it seems that should be allowed as an exception to the general definition of "original" in councours.  Perhaps that would be allowable with written documentation of the required smog retrofit.

Agree this would be in contrast with the intended goal or representing how the cars were originally built. Their ability to be used/driven is something that is not part of the goal. Another challenge would be the retrofit - which ones would be ok or how many retrofits one could have.  There are classes at some shows and organizations that include the worked "driven" in the class title that one might make suggestions to and some allow for safety and other requirements/retrofits but they almost always have some limitations and truthfully at some point, if you are one of those that are concerned with safety, your and your family's safety should be worth losing a few points at a car show IMHO

Currently it cars can be returned to factory emission standards and do not require retrofitting. Chances of being caught in a roadside random test are small so even those that have modified their cars are not as likely to get questioned as years past since they did away with the bi-annual test

Not sure why anyone would still be running the retrofits except out of having something different for people to point out and discuss of the engine compartment were open

I get your point, but the "appropriate/acceptable" smog retrofit is pretty simple:  Thermactor equipment removed, Ford plugs installed in air holes in smog heads.  It is my understanding that was what was done, or at least what was supposed to be done.

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

The line in the sand has been as delivered to the first customer from the dealer which by the way allows for non factory variations as long as there is reasonable proof that it was done by the dealer prior to delivery.  There are many examples of the evolution of parts that happened after the cars were sold new. The hinge is one ,thermactor may be another .There are many more. That is why just because a part is NOS for a particular application doesn't mean it is assemblyline correct. The evolution of replacement parts was sometimes to make it better other times it was to make it cheaper or to fit more applications for less Ford replacement parts inventory. Where do you draw the line for what  "should " be reflected in the standard for "originality"?  A week? A month? A year? A decade? The original post was about a 1967 application and you are making it about a 68 application . Regardless of the year of interest the same requirements have to be able to be applied across the board equally. You have not made a case for the thermactor delete being allowed in a concours venue unless this revision could be shown with reasonable (key word) proof as being done prior to the first owner taking delivery by the dealer

Well, I do not disagree with most of this, except that I was not making it about a 1968 application.  The January 1, 1968 date is relevant because that is the implementation date for the federal smog law.  "Tired Sheep" is the one who turned this into a 1968 model year issue, which I responded to.  My point was addressing only cars made in 1967, or earlier, because that is why we need to be discussing California requirements.  For cars manufactured up through December 31, 1967, California could require whatever they decided to with regard to smog.  As I indicated, I have personal experience with a retrofitted car in that situation.

I understand your point regarding the "slippery slope" of modifications, but when we are dealing with a legally-mandated retrofit to be able to drive the car on public roads in the State of California, it seems that should be allowed as an exception to the general definition of "original" in councours.  Perhaps that would be allowable with written documentation of the required smog retrofit.  In any event, this is just a theoretical issue for me as while I am interested in originality, I do not participate in concours events, nor do I plan to do so.

The incorrect assumptions are yours.

Specific engines were federally certified before 1968 production started and did not change for Shelbys during the course of the model year. The vast majority of all 68 Shelbys were built after January 1, those that were built prior still had the smog controls.

This is a documented fact. Factory build sheets show the same engine configurations during the entire production run from September 1967 to July 1968.

Maybe not federally mandated, but Ford adopted to the coming changes so they did have to change during production.

Unfortunately, your internet research does not match the reality of production. The only 1968 Shelbys built w/o smog were GT350 automatics.

What someone did after the fact is irrelevant to the historical correctness of the cars.

Nope.  You are missing the point.  You questioned how California could require the removal of federally required smog equipment.  Whether the car was a 1967 or 1968 model does not matter, as long as it was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  I have personal family experience with a 1968 Mustang in Southern California that, while it was still required to be smog inspected in connection with the annual registration renewal, was required to be smog retrofitted.  The Thermactor air holes were plugged and the remaining equipment was removed prior to smog inspection approval.  The car had a manufacture date of November 1967.  Was the car no longer "original"?  Under concours standards, yes, but it was "legal" in California after the retrofit.

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

Would love to see the "recall" for removing federally mandated smog equipment. Do you have a copy?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

I think that you are making a couple of incorrect assumptions.  First, it was not a "recall," which is why I put "recall" in quotes.  Second, emissions equipment was not "federally mandated" for cars manufactured before January 1, 1968.  This can be confirmed from existing law in the form of the federal regulations regarding importation of motor vehicles:

"19 CFR § 12.73 - Importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.

(e) Exemptions and exclusions from emission requirements based on age of vehicle. The following motor vehicles may be imported by any person and do not have to be shown to be in compliance with emission requirements before they are entitled to admissibility:

(1) Gasoline-fueled light-duty trucks and light-duty motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968;"

For cars made prior to January 1, 1968, what the Thermactor setup was addressing was a California emissions program.  Also, California vehicles from model year 1975 and older were later made exempt from the smog requirements.  This has, in part, been attributed to the counterproductive nature of the older smog setups.

There are references if you perform a Google search.  Here is one specific to 1966 Mustangs with California emissions:

https://www.vintage-mustang.com/threads/taking-off-thermactor-system.539287/

"I deleted my Thermactor system when I rebuilt the engine and restored the car.  The system actually increased NOX emissions and there was a NOX retrofit program here in CA several years later that attempted to address the problem.  Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the manifold.  If you install the Ford plugs, you simply need to remove the components.  The smog pump acted as the belt tightening device for one of the belts IIRC.  When you remove it you will need a different belt."

By the way, the oft quoted knee-jerk statement:  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" makes no sense in this context.  A quick Google search will show that none of this is reasonably in dispute.  The only justification for the Thermactor smog setup is the concours standard that requires the car to appear as it was when originally sold.

[and]

briefly reply to your post above - the time period used for concours judging at SAAC is "as the car was delivered to the first owner".

So in this case with the thermactor system in place.

Got it.  Thanks.  I understand the philosophy, but I question it.  For 1968 cars for example, I know that there was a recall of the folding front seat latches.  I would rather have the replacement latch than the original "concours correct" defective latch, for safety reasons.  I think the same argument could be made for Thermactor smog, especially if you are at all concerned about increased emissions.  Of course, you could just gut the pump, as described above, but the actual "recall" was for removal and plugging.  Absolute rules/standards that ignore subsequent reality sometimes lead to absurd results, such as mandating the use of a counterproductive, defective setup that reduces horsepower and causes increased air pollution.