Owner's Manual questions

[lasound]

Hi all! I found this in my father's garage, from researching on this forum, it appears (to my untrained eye) it is an original second printing? Is that correct? (From researching, hopefully I got it right, some tips are: The unfilled hole punches with "One" partially visible instead of 1.0 in the reproductions for the Stabilizer Bar - as well as the offset alignment of the end of fourth line of the paragraph on the cover) I can upload any photos you want, I took pictures of all the pages.

If so, my question is basically, when were the second editions printed? Were the first editions for the late '65 carryover cars? And the second printing a little later?

Just trying to understand what I have!

[s2ms]

I concur, you have a 2nd printing original, it has the appropriate punch hole ghosts over the word 'ONE', opposite that in the left front tire, and in the word 'OPTIONAL' at the top of the left page.

From my observations the different versions are somewhat spread out throughout production, I've seen second printings in early cars and vice versa.

[427hunter]

I do not believe that version was ever delivered with the cars when new. I think they were printed at a later point and sold through SA. 

[Bob Gaines]

I do not believe that version was ever delivered with the cars when new. I think they were printed at a later point and sold through SA. 

You are welcome to your beliefs but although I did not buy one new over the many years I have seen in person and talked to original owners specifically about glove box contents .  It was typical for the Shelby owners manual to be included when new. In 66 you would also have a Koni book for early cars,plexiglass car manual,high performance supplement manual along with a standard Mustang owners manual . Any number of those could have been left out by mistake but the intention was that they were to be included. It is documented that Shelby dealers had extra Shelby manuals to take the place of one's not included in the cars. this was consistent 66-70 Shelby. 65 is the only year I am not sure about being automatically included from the get go.

[Bob Gaines]

I would also mention that if a manual was left out of the car that the dealer had extras to take care of the mistake. If the dealer didn't discover the mistake it might be some time before a owner noticed the missing manual.Some of these requests for manual spanned a significant amount of time . I imagine the returned and sold Hertz cars had a high rate of disappeared owners manuals. For whatever reason it didn't seem like Shelby/Ford ever printed up enough manuals for the cars 65-70 initially for the number that ended up being produced. That is why the need for multiple printings in a given production year. For example there a number of different versions of the 66 Shelby owners manual. The same goes for 67-70 too. Anyone of the different manuals could have been in a car when it was sold new from the dealer to the first customer . If one was missing and one sourced from a dealer procured it would be hard to justify that it wasn't with the car when new. Consequently it is reasonable to give as much weight to the validity or at the least a pass to any year Shelby with one of the alternate manuals in concours. At least that is how the people I have judged with that are aware of the variations treat the situation. There are other threads with pictures on subject that have been done on this forum in the past. 

[427hunter]

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original style delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Also my car (853) has the first printing manual.

[Bob Gaines]

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original ones delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Then you might not have understood my post which in short said if a owners manual was not put in a car by mistake then a alternate manual may have been put in place by the dealer. Ether one gets a pass given it was far from a rare occurrence base on the evidence.

[427hunter]

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original ones delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Then you might not have understood my post which in short said if a owners manual was not put in a car by mistake then a alternate manual may have been put in place by the dealer. Ether one gets a pass given it was far from a rare occurrence base on the evidence.

So we are saying the same thing, these are not the original manuals printed for the cars but a second printing from SA. You are just adding that some of the cars may have been sold new with the second printing for a variety of reasons.

[Bob Gaines]

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original ones delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Then you might not have understood my post which in short said if a owners manual was not put in a car by mistake then a alternate manual may have been put in place by the dealer. Ether one gets a pass given it was far from a rare occurrence base on the evidence.
[/quote

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original ones delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Then you might not have understood my post which in short said if a owners manual was not put in a car by mistake then a alternate manual may have been put in place by the dealer. Ether one gets a pass given it was far from a rare occurrence base on the evidence.

So we are saying the same thing, these are not the original manuals printed for the cars but a second printing from SA. You are just adding that some of the cars may have been sold new with the second printing for a variety of reasons.

Hi Bob, I am not sure you understood me, I am saying the second printing (with the hole punch and other changes) were not the original ones delivered with the cars. I am saying they were a later reprint from SA.

Then you might not have understood my post which in short said if a owners manual was not put in a car by mistake then a alternate manual may have been put in place by the dealer. Ether one gets a pass given it was far from a rare occurrence base on the evidence.

So we are saying the same thing, these are not the original manuals printed for the cars but a second printing from SA. You are just adding that some of the cars may have been sold new with the second printing for a variety of reasons.

There was not enough of the first printing printed for all of 66 GT350 production. That leaves the second printing to be used in later cars after the first printing ran out. There are other different looking owners manual variations made by SA to finish production and for replacements.   

[98SVT - was 06GT]

843 a Hertz car had no manual when I bought it in 1975. I bought a repop (printed not photocopied) of that manual in 1975. It would be 50 years old and yellowed just like the one in the OP.
Having worked in the printing industry 60+ years these areas (and many others) that are not sharp indicate to me it was copied from an original printed version and not the original commercially produced artwork.

[NC TRACKRAT]

I just inspected our original first printing 1966 Owner's Manual from 6S1467 and the checkering at the tip of the "C" looks the same, however, the "W" is very precise and has no waviness.  Since the 2nd printing "artwork" was made from a copy of the first, it's understandable that it would be less precise.

[427hunter]

I just inspected our original first printing 1966 Owner's Manual from 6S1467 and the checkering at the tip of the "C" looks the same, however, the "W" is very precise and has no waviness.  Since the 2nd printing "artwork" was made from a copy of the first, it's understandable that it would be less precise.

So we now have through 853-1467 with first printing, let's see if we can find the latest  car with a first printing manual.

[NC TRACKRAT]

There may be but I really don't know that there's any correlation of First Printing to chronologic VIN.

[s2ms]

There may be but I really don't know that there's any correlation of First Printing to chronologic VIN.

+1, but it would be interesting to figure out if possible. I have the original 1st printing manual for 6S1757 but as mentioned have seen 2nd printing manuals thought to be original in early cars. Could be several reasons for this as Bob mentions.

[Engineer]

Many years ago I read or was told that the need for the second printing (and then the black and white service printing) was related to the Hertz cars (GT350H).

No one at Shelby American expected the order to be "1,000" GT350H.

Many of the Hertz did not have an owners manual supplement when they came up for resale.