French 1966 Carroll Shelby Interview

[Bob Gaines]

Thank you for the clarification on the intake manifold bolts. I wasn't sure that when Ford was installing the cobra intake that the motor was completely built, painted and tested with Ford's intake. Then partially taken apart, and the cobra intake, carb, and oil pan installed.
I thought there maybe a way to differentiate between Ford installing them, and SA. Seems like Ford duplicated their work. Instead of just picking an allotment of engines, and building them with the SA specific items, then testing.

Some of the possible ways to tell the difference between the Ford built Shelbized engine and SA built that I have thought made sense have failed the test of time as more information has come to light. 3 steps forward and 2 steps back kind of thing.

[SFM6S087]

Thanks for posting all of this, we're helping a buddy on a '66 and this is relevant to the restoration and just general knowledge of the cars and history.

JD, you are very welcome. I'm pleased that you find this information useful. Just be sure to keep the evidence and the opinions in this thread separate. You may view the exact same evidence and come to a different conclusion. And if so, your conclusion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's.

The one obvious exception is concours judging. If your friend is restoring his car for concours competition then you must build the car to the standards of the concours judges (whether you agree with them or not) if you want to score high. I'm guessing you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in for others who may be reading this. I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions.

Steve

Steve, you seemed concerned about someone losing points if entering a car in concours over a "think for yourself" conclusion as it pertains to information in this thread . I am not aware of any of the Mustang/Shelby venues that deduct points for philosophy . The venues deduct points for lack of historical context appearance. Regardless of where the cars had the engine parts installed the end result of how they looked after appears to be identical. With that said what conclusion that would have a effect on the appearance of how someone prepares a 65 or 66 GT350 for concours are you concerned about ?

Bob, there appears to be a misunderstanding. No matter how carefully I word my replies, there always seems to be room for misinterpretation. My friends can tell you that I often spend hours or even days trying to get the wording of a comment exactly right before posting - just to try to prevent situations like this. Seems I'm not very successful despite all my efforts. I'll try harder next time. Heck, I'll try harder this time. I will do my very best to answer your question in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

Now to answer your question:

I did not mean that philosophy was a judging criterion. I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe that was supposed to be clever in some way and I'm just not sophisticated enough to get it. Whatever. I meant that you should not let your personal beliefs and opinions cause you to do something to your car that will cost you points in judging - if your goal is to compete in concours.

In the early sentences of my reply to JD I found myself encouraging him (and indirectly anyone else reading this thread) to think for himself and make his own conclusions. Something that I believe we both agree on. Then it dawned on me that JD had mentioned what I posted could be relevant to the restoration of his friends car. So I was concerned that my encouragement to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions might steer them wrong if they are restoring for concours. Hence, I added the second paragraph for the exact reason stated in the final sentence. "I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions." Even now, after careful reconsideration, I can't think of a more precise way to phrase that.

As to how the appearance of a 65-66 engine would differ depending on information in this thread. - My particular concern was the heads on the intake bolts. I don't have a good enough knowledge of the Ford engine building process to know if the intake bold heads might have avoided being painted if Ford installed the aluminum intakes. And packaged into my reply was the thought that there may or may not be other differences that I was simply unaware of. Better to just advise to build to the judges' standards if restoring for concours. (Note: It looks like Jeff addressed the bolt head issue as I was composing this answer. Thanks, Jeff.)

In short, I was trying to give some good general advice while keeping in mind the limitations of my own knowledge. Limitations that I'm trying to correct with threads like this and help from people like you.

Steve

Steve , you words showed concern about deduction of points in concours based on your previous comments which it is reasonable to assume are the ones in the context of your discussion over who did the parts install of this thread.  I did not understand why you wanted to make that kind of statement "I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions" given there is no difference on how the engine appears regardless of who did the engine parts install . Your concern didn't make any sense to me and consequently seemed a little dramatic because I assumed you knew better.  I now read that you were not aware that the installs were the same . Hopefully now that you have a better understanding of the process you will not have to be concerned with anyone losing "concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions". At least like I qualified in my previous post in the context of the discussion on this thread.   

Bob, that's a very nice explanation. And I appreciate knowing that there would be no difference in how the engine would appear regardless of who did the parts install. That's good information.

And I think I now see what happened to my post and your interpretation of it.

Here's what I wrote:

"I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions."

Here's what you seem to have read after running it through your filter of "assumptions," "reasonable assumptions" and "context."

"I wouldn't want anyone to lose concours points on their engine build because they followed Steve's advice to think for themselves and make their own conclusions."

Notice the difference?

Sometimes it's not complicated. Sometimes "assumptions," "reasonable assumptions" and "context" are not needed to draw out some deep, hidden meaning. Sometimes a sentence simply means what the words in print say. That was the case in my post. It was not engine specific.

But it appears to have worked out well that you continued this side bar. Now I know that the engines would have turned out the same whether Ford or Shelby completed the final steps. That was one of several concerns I had. The others are less technical and more personal, and will not be discussed here.

Thanks again for your continuing contributions to my Shelby education.

Steve

[chris NOS]

i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

[SFM6S087]

i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

Steve, your flattery compensation check is in the mail .

[SFM6S087]

i just read the whole post ! that's a lot of work ! thank you Bob, Jeff ,Steve and others for your dedication to have Shelby American production's history clear and accurate !

Thank you for your kind words. You are very welcome. I really enjoy the opportunity to share and learn new things here on the forum. It's a great setting and we're blessed to have so many knowledgeable experts (I'm not one) who take time to participate here. It's a honor for me to have my name mentioned in the same sentence with Bob & Jeff - two of the truly great resources in this community.

Steve

Steve, your flattery compensation check is in the mail .

Same amount as usual I presume.

[TransamEd]

Very interesting...yet I wondered about the cut-out of the DSO71-2504 sheet and searched my files. In fact there are some not-available items listed underneath and there are some supplements with it provided back then by the source I obtained them from. I think the information is a bit incomplete, but there may be a reason.
I forwarded them to Howard for SAAC purposes..must have been mid 90ies and he mentioned he'd never seen them. Actually looking at the complete DSO sheets of 71-2504 and 71-2506 they were for R-codes is/was my understanding from the sources original mail.

[J_Speegle]

Very interesting...yet I wondered about the cut-out of the DSO71-2504 sheet and searched my files. In fact there are some not-available items listed underneath and there are some supplements with it provided back then by the source I obtained them from. I think the information is a bit incomplete, but there may be a reason. ......

For others he's referring to 65 production rather than 66

All good just wanted others to be aware that your comments referred to a different year/time period