Messages

In case he doesn't mention it in the video, that's 6S200.

Steve Sloan

Continuing thanks to all those offering their information to this survey.

Steve

Yee Ha! The mother lode. Thanks, Jeff, and everyone else contributing to this research.

Steve

Checked our car out when we first bought it to make sure they had ducts installed, definitely black

FL SAAC, Which car would that be, please?

Steve

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far. This is GREAT information!

GT350Lad, your 6S373 is currently the highest VIN car I'm aware of with white ducts. And the only non-carryover with white ducts. Well, so far at least. Hopefully we'll get a lot more participants in this survey.

Steve

[Ducts]

For reference, Shelby American called the (plastic?) fittings on each end of the brake hose "Inlet and Outlet Ducts." So that's the term I'm going to use. Some people refer to these as "ferrules."

See attached pictures. The white ducts are original from 6S087. The black duct is supposed to be original from a car in the 600s. I have info on a few cars from previous research efforts, and a pattern is emerging. It looks like Shelby American started out using white ducts and later transitioned to black. I'm trying to confirm that theory and possibly pin down when that occurred. Further data is needed.

If you know what color the original brake ducts are on any 1966 GT350, please let me know the VIN and color of the ducts.

Thanks for any info you can provide on this topic.

Having Fun Every Day,
Steve Sloan

A friend who is not on the forum asked me to post this. He found a 1970 Shelby hood on the side of the road. He will give the hood to the rightful owner. If you can identify the hood (color, condition, etc.) and roughly where it was lost, it's yours. Please contact me if you're the owner and I'll put you in touch with my friend. An email will work best as I rarely think about checking for PMs here on the forum. You can find my email address in my member profile.

Steve Sloan

Perfectly understandable, John. Especially since the very first sentence that FL SAAC posted on this topic was, "Originally a white-with-blue-stripes '65 Shelby, car #48 was pulled and repainted in Hertz black and gold for presentation to Hertz rental company." Clearly indicating 5S048. I just assumed that "'65"was a typo on his part after reading the rest of his posts.

Either way, I'm happy you know what a carryover is and are willing to stand up for them when you spot perceived misinformation. THANKS!

Steve

For the record – a carryover is a car that started life as a 1965 Mustang chassis and was transformed at Shelby American into a 1966 GT350. The first 252 1966 GT350s fit into that description. That would be 6S001 through 6S252.

Also for the record, all carryovers are 1966 GT350s – not 1965.

So, in addition to being a special Hertz prototype, 6S048 is a 1966 GT350 carryover (albeit the Hertz version of the GT350). It was ordered from Ford by Shelby American on the same DSO as my 6S087 and 65 other cars. It was pulled at random from that batch to build into the first Hertz prototype.

How do I know that? Because I've been studying those 252 cars for 45 years. At one time those cars were referred to as leftover 65's, 65 1/2,'s, crossovers, change-overs, and early 66's among other names.  I and the Carryover Owners Group were instrumental in getting the automotive community to unite on the term carryover, as it seemed to most accurately reflect the history of those special cars. If you'd like to learn more we have a web site:

www.CarryoverGT350.com

The "Unique Features" page is the result of my decades of research into these cars.

Over the years I've learned a lot about these cars, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know it all. So if you think I'm wrong let's discuss it. If your presentation is strong enough I'll admit my error and give you credit for teaching me something. I'm always ready to learn something new, especially when it involves carryovers.

Steve

Bret,

Thanks for letting us know about this car for sale. I followed the link to your web site, but couldn't find this car listed there. Was hoping to see a few pictures.

Steve Sloan

Without weighing in on the discussion regarding 6S240 having backup lights from the factory, there is a plausible reason why the car was restored with them.

MOT regulations in the UK require that turn signals be physically separate from the taillight, they cannot be functionally combined using the same lens as in the US. Since 240 was restored in the UK, it was finished in compliance with this requirement. It is common UK practice to adapt the backup lights on early Mustangs to function as signals. This is the reason for the amber lenses in the backup light housings.

Bill, I checked with the owner of this car and got a little additional information. The turn signal lights in the UK cannot be red - must be amber. So even if the law didn't require a separate turn signal light, something would have to be done to the early Mustangs because of the all red taillight lens. The amber lenses in the backup light housings solves both those problems.

Steve

The window sticker that came  with 165  stated backup lights as an added option. Also 2 mirrors and a dash clock. I think every dealer option should be a plus for a car. Was a dealer demo for Marshall Ford.

That is a very interesting car.

I see mention in the Registry of The Marshal Motor Company adding alloy wheels, 2 outside rear view mirrors, radio antenna and dash clock. But no mention of backup lights. And adding those would have required replacing the rear valance panel. Not something I think a dealer would want to do. But the car wasn't sold to the original owner until 1967, so I suppose anything is possible.

Is the window sticker that you mentioned original? Could you post a copy of that window sticker? I'd love to see it, and I'm sure Howard will want to update his records if those backup lights really were dealer installed.

Thanks,
Steve Sloan

The research I've done indicates that the 250 non-prototype carryovers were originally built without backup lights. That was ascertained from a combination of the DSOs, some of the 1966 GT350 planning meeting notes, and period photos of actual cars.

Of the two prototypes, 6S001 has been presented without backup lights for many years now. I assume that's correct for that car. And 6S023 has disappeared, so we don't know about that car.

Several of these cars have had backup lights added at some point in time. And if that suits the owner I certainly have no complaint.

Steve Sloan

Piggy-backing on the research and information that Charles previously provided, we can make a pretty good guess when these photos were taken.

5S358 – shipped to Archway on 8/3/65 and sold to first owner on 12/21/65
5S471 – shipped to Archway on 8/3/65 and sold to first owner on 12/10/65
5S505 – shipped to Archway on 8/3/65 and sold to first owner on 12/22/65
6S230 – shipped to Archway on 9/30/65 and didn't sell until 9/3/66.

It would seem that these pictures had to be taken between 9/30/65 (when 6S230 shipped to Archway) and 12/22/65 (when the last of the possible 1965 GT350s in these photos was sold to its first owner.

Make sense?

Steve

I think the '66 carryover is 6S230.  I only found 2 carryover's shipped to Archway Motors, the other was 6S248, but there is no mention of LeMans stripes.

The '65 is one of these:
5S505
5S471
5S358

I agree with you about the 1966 car. It's a carryover for sure because it doesn't have backup lights. And, as you mentioned, only 2 carryovers shipped to Archway - 6s230 with Cragars & stripes, and 6s248 with Cragars but no stripes. Making this car 6s230. Great research on your part. I was all set to do a deep dive to figure out which carryover that was, but you already did that. Thanks!

Steve