French 1966 Carroll Shelby Interview

[gt350cs]

I know it is a long shot, but does anyone on these forums have a good picture of the Willow Springs corner markers shown in the track footage?

I have been searching for a picture that will show the detail of what was on the signs. If anyone can help me find a picture, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dennis

[SFM6S087]

Thanks as always, Steve for the confirmation and information to back it up. 👍🏻

You are most welcome. I have other evidence, but presenting it would be even longer and more boring than what I've already posted. I think the point has been made. And the video that started this thread is the icing on the cake. A video of the intakes & carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line. You gotta love that.

As always, I'm open to changing my mind if new information comes to light. But I've seen nothing so far that would make me question the conclusion that S.A. installed the Shelby engine accessories on all the 1965-66 cars, with the exception of the few that ended up with black painted intakes.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

[Shelby_r_b]

I'm confused as to how Steve's tone is confrontational.  There is an obvious difference in opinion, and Steve has put together a timeline of evidence he has found that supports his point of view.  Where is the confrontation?

I would suggest that all of us are prone to error.  And, in the end, the person with the best information / data (as in the business world) usually carries the most weight. 

To be quite honest, it seems that those who know the most in general tend to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to research / fact - I understand.  However, I have seen many well informed people in my life determine what is correct or not based solely on pedigree; which is not always correct. 

Disagreeing with someone and providing evidence is not confrontation.  My belief is that this forum is all about the sharing of information based on evidence versus pedigree.  And, there is no certified expert for whom should be regarded as the infallible truth until proven other wise.

BTW - you've been very helpful to myself and others, Bob; which I greatly appreciate.  My statement is meant to be broad versus targeted.

Thanks!

[Bob Gaines]

I'm confused as to how Steve's tone is confrontational.  There is an obvious difference in opinion, and Steve has put together a timeline of evidence he has found that supports his point of view.  Where is the confrontation?

I would suggest that all of us are prone to error.  And, in the end, the person with the best information / data (as in the business world) usually carries the most weight. 

To be quite honest, it seems that those who know the most in general tend to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to research / fact - I understand.  However, I have seen many well informed people in my life determine what is correct or not based solely on pedigree; which is not always correct. 

Disagreeing with someone and providing evidence is not confrontation.  My belief is that this forum is all about the sharing of information based on evidence versus pedigree.  And, there is no certified expert for whom should be regarded as the infallible truth until proven other wise.

BTW - you've been very helpful to myself and others, Bob; which I greatly appreciate.  My statement is meant to be broad versus targeted.

Thanks!

Ruben, my interpretation is just that mine not yours . FYI there have been other discussions that are a relevant context for Steve and my discussion. Thank you for trying to help.

[Wedgeman]

Bob Gaines..Thanks for that first pic of the 67's sitting with their engines showing...I had never seen that one before...   Didn't know that posting that video on FB would start such an interesting discussion.. Thanks to... S2MS..for posting...we all learn things from these posts.  In the pic i was talking about , I noticed there were no Shelby VIN numbers like in the pic of the White GT500 # 231 moving down the assembly line at SA . I am assuming they were not assigned there Shelby VIN #'s yet.?

[Bob Gaines]

Bob Gaines..Thanks for that first pic of the 67's sitting with their engines showing...I had never seen that one before...   Didn't know that posting that video on FB would start such an interesting discussion.. Thanks to... S2MS..for posting...we all learn things from these posts.  In the pic i was talking about , I noticed there were no Shelby VIN numbers like in the pic of the White GT500 # 231 moving down the assembly line at SA . I am assuming they were not assigned there Shelby VIN #'s yet.?

That is another interesting discussion of whether Ford in 67 determined which Ford VIN went with what Shelby Vin if if Shelby randomly assigned the Shelby VIN to cars. There is circumstantial evidence for both lines of thought. 

[J_Speegle]

Sorry been distracted with all of the off forum things going on.

One concern I have with what has been presented so far is the mixing together of information, comments and such from different production periods. Believe the film and in turn the thread's focus was on later 66 production given the color of the cars being produced and the details visible in the film. Adding allot of "stuff" from other periods may lead us to make conclusions that are incorrect and muddy the water. As far as the period in the film it appears that we have periods of time before it where SA and Ford installed the items and the period after where Ford did the installation.

Just an opinion with no agenda.

There is no reason to rush to a conclusion - and IMHO sometimes we don't have to have an answer to everything right right at this moment. As the film shows us there are still things out there left undiscovered

(added an additional sentence to explain the point better)

[6s2020]

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

[Bob Gaines]

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

Sorry I'm not going to feed the troll.

[6s2020]

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

WOW, there is another thread on here talking about this exact "projecting" to displace one's own behaviour.... or some such shit.

And are these photos your come back evidence, they are 67s ,so that is one time point that ford fitted the parts. No one is saying different.

Show some 65-66 photos or film to counter Steves evidence.

Help us better understand your point of view.

This is why some stop showing great original SAI examples as they just get dismissed.

Sorry I'm not going to feed the troll.

Wow again, you just proved my point.

[camp upshur]

Bob, Steve and all:
This is a great and substantive thread. New original material and thoughtful inputs therein. Shades of our original forum!
I think I speak for many here on how much we all benefit from your sharing of your considerable expertise.
Would hate to see this veer off track. Been alot of 'psychobabble' on here lately.
Love talking shop and anything to do with that fabulous SAI history, especially at West Imperial Highway.

My unsolicited two-cents (from my backround): eyewitnesses often time turn out to less than reliable in a thorough investigation-makes it difficult sometimes.

Steve A

[s2ms]

Back on topic...

For those that haven't seen it, here's the video text (translated from French) from the FB post Wedgeman found:

"Carroll Shelby - Behind the scenes of the feat The period allowing me to explore the hidden corners of my hard disks, I propose tonight an interview with Carroll Shelby, aired on June 16, 1966, Thursday before the 24 pm, as part of the show "Behind the scenes of the feat". Well, starting in, it starts wrong with two spelling errors in Texas's name, but the rest is much nicer. We start with views of the Shelby plant parking lot at LAX where the Mustang GT350, that look black, so maybe of in finish. Then Carroll Shelby arrives in Cobra 289 and invites us into his office to tell us about his career. Next are images of the Mustang GT350, assembly line and the competition service, probably just after the 24 hours of Daytona 1966, as we see the winning MK II at the hands Ken Miles and Lloyd Ruby, P/1015, on a set and that other cars seem to be dismantling. The spider X-1 is also seen in the process of being assembled and the 7 litres test and break-in benches. Then follow pictures of a Shelby advertising film shot in Riverside where you see a GT40 (GT/105?), a GT350 with it, looks like Bob Bondurant at his wheel, and Ken Miles, filmed in the counter diving, literally having fun at the wheel of a Cobra. Beautiful images of the 24 Hours of Daytona 1966 take over and the report is already talking about the brake problems of the MkII. With respect to the images of the 12 Hours of Sebring, and because the report was probably closed in front, it dates back to the 1965 edition, the victory of the Chaparral 2 A of Jim Hall and Superbowl Sharp, and we present the footage of the second GT40, Ken Miles and Bruce McLaren on GT / 103 as the winners. After a very diplomatic speech by Caroll Shelby about Ford's chances of winning at Le Mans 1966, very rare images of the April 1966 Trials are presented. Carroll Shelby is dressed in black, probably to pay tribute to Walt Hansgen who killed himself the day before at the wheel of P/1011, crushing at the end of the Dunlop escape. Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart, present on behalf of Alan Mann, Ken Miles driving P/1012 and very rare footage and sound recording of J-1. Otherwise, take care of yourself and your loved ones in this difficult time."

If the comment regarding the GT350 production line is accurate and just after the 66 Daytona, I believe that would put it in very late Feb or early March 1966.

[SFM6S087]

I vaguely recall someone posting somewhere  years ago about SA selling Cast Iron 4V 289 Intakes & Autolite 4V Carbs dirt cheap. If confirmed..wouldn't that verify that work was done at SA ....?

That is well known to many early Shelby aficionado's. Since your not familiar FYI That was in 65 vintage mags and were black paint intakes ,exhaust manifolds etc .Of course black intakes signify's 65 production . Later Ford memos to SA documenting the requests for expected volume so that Ford could get the highrise intakes etc. on hand at the Cleveland engine plant is what has driven the consensus of opinion for that time period being the change over. Another is a early snafu involving the engine plant painting the aluminum intakes engine color by mistake which also confirms Fords involvement with the installation. We do know that SA had to install at least the intakes at that point until Ford could figure out a procedure to not paint them.  The footage in the video posted raises more questions then answers IMO because it appears to come after the time that SA was waiting for Ford to get the engine production issue figured out. It is undeniable that Ford did the conversions at some point. The discussion is about pinning down the time line better.

Steve, please don't make this discussion confrontational as your writing tone seems to indicate . I want to get to the truth as much as you . To my point that you highlighted in reply #28 are some pictures of 67 models with engine mods installed as delivered from San Jose plant to SA. A picture is worth a thousand words. It is undeniable that the engine mods were on those cars. Of course they are 67 models but it speaks to the validity of my statement . As I said before the discussion is about pinning down the time line better. I am glad to consider what you have already written and also the other information that you allege you have that you offered to show if you want to send it to me. You have Jeff Speegle and my email address that you used in the past . Help me better understand your point of view.  I will stand by.

Bob,

When I first saw this reply from you I wondered what the 1967 cars were doing in this discussion. Thanks for explaining that. And that also explains your "undeniable" comment in reply #20. In the future when you wish to inject 1967 cars into a discussion of 1966 cars you may want to be more clear in your post. For people like me who may not make that connection. And from some of the other replies I've seen, I'm not the only one who didn't understand that you were bringing 1967 cars into this, and why. You've explained it now, but it would have been so much simpler to have mentioned that up front.

Three quick points before I get to the topic at hand.

One. Your suggestion that I'm making this discussion "confrontational" is neither accurate nor helpful. I saw something you posted that I disagreed with. I presented my opinion and followed that up with some evidence to support my position. Then I cordially invited you to respond with the information you have that might prove me wrong so that I could learn something new. If that's what you consider "confrontational" then so be it. You call it confrontational; I call it an opportunity for learning. For me, that's one of the greatest functions of this forum – to share information and opinions in a public setting – inviting anyone with input to join in the discussion. All in the hope of learning something new.

Two. I don't "allege" anything. I have more evidence. I shared it with Jeff Speegle a few days ago and I'm awaiting his reply before posting publicly because it touches on an area that he is an expert in. Your use of the word "allege" implies that I'm not being honest with this forum with my mention of more evidence. That's what I call confrontational. But I will give you credit for the subtlety of your method.

Three. Because I thought this would be easier to discuss out of the public eye, I sent you my complete research file on this topic over a year ago (via email) and invited your comments and opinion. You replied that you didn't have the time right then because you were remodeling your house (or something like that). I understood and patiently waited for you to get time to reply. During that waiting period, I followed up on several occasions and sent you updated versions of my research file; still requesting your input. It's over a year later and you still haven't had the time. Nothing personal, but emailing you on this topic has not yielded very good results. It took my public posts in this forum to engage you in this discussion, and I'm going to stick with what works for now. Perhaps sometime in the future I'll try the email thing again.

Now that those distractions are (hopefully) out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

All my posts have made it clear that my focus is on the 1965-66 cars. In particular 1966. I'm presenting evidence that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. Your posts, both here and in other topics, have lead me to believe that you don't agree with me on that.

If you think my conclusion is wrong, please post the information you have that would override what I've presented. I'm ready to learn.

Thanks,
Steve

[trotrof1]

Scrutinizing the film, I noticed that starting at 2.20 the first intake appears to have a painted water elbow with the nipple bare metal when the hose was removed.  A second manifold at 2.26 also appears to be a painted elbow. Not dichromate plated. Yes, no?