French 1966 Carroll Shelby Interview

[J_Speegle]

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....

At Ford the nipples for the heater hose connections as well as radiator hoses were masked (likely a slip tube) to keep paint off those surfaces to improve the sealing properties and reduce the chance of leaks.

[trotrof1]

Is this a instance where a component could have either external coating  possibly a timeline thing? Painted or plated.

[J_Speegle]

Is this a instance where a component could have either external coating  possibly a timeline thing? Painted or plated.

Believe the discussion has been if the elbows were removed and reused after the intakes were swapped and after the engine was run (like the thermostat housing and bypass hose/clamps) or if it was easier/cheaper to replace them to be replaced with a new elbow.


Of course the practice would possibly be related to the production period at the engine plant and or SA. Looking at the whole 65 and 66 production periods (many many months) there are examples with ones that have remnants of paint on some examples. Again it's best to compare apples with apples  IMHO

Believe I've posted some pictures of some of them in other threads here

[trotrof1]

Thanks Jeff, interesting how these old videos and photos reveal some details.

[s2ms]

Personally I believe this can be explained by artifacts like shadows and reflections.

When the first intake starts being lowered into place at the 2:13 mark the elbow looks unpainted to me, as it's being lowered onto the block the shade changes until it almost looks completely painted. The elbow on the second intake at 2:26 looks to be all the same shade as well. It is darker, but still could be explained by a shadow or reflection to me.

Just my opinion...

[SFM6S087]

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

[SFM6S087]

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

I didn't think a unreasonable question given the picture of the factory build sheet showing the normal hipo being substituted for the apparent Shelbized engine version that you posted. That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make . I know that was not your intention.    " Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production." You can understand why I might want to have the same understanding so that I too could have a high confidence level in your point of view. In as courteous and respectful way possible I asked the question .

[J_Speegle]

First sorry I've not been able to show as much attention to the forum. Virus stuff has kept the family busy as well as other things. And like th evirus - doesn't appear it will be easing soon. Just don't have as much time to look deeply at the subject and data. With that said

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

In the hopes that both sided can be heard and the discussion can continue in a pleasant manner

I'm a bit confused why you gave grouped together 65, carry over and 66 production together and are using 65 information for 66 while not looking, also at 67 since all were built at the same plant and Shelby was still in the south. Think that should enter into the discussion if we're going to look at the whole subject.

Not sure of the "any evidence" statement since you posted the engine letter in two of your responses.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

If we're going to look at the whole subject - not the intended purpose of the thread as I can see - of engines being dressed at the engine plant or SA then we need to include in addition to the letter I would offer the following view of the paperwork from the paperwork of 71-2502 Indicating that as a change from 71-2501 the engines with the carb, intake, valve covers and other parts be part of this order. A change from the earlier order

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

May need more research since 370 identification was used for another non- high performance V8 if the first couple of books I pulled were incorrect

You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant.

And in closing this time I respectfully would ask that you add to the discussion 67 production practices as it relates to the engine as IMHO it has as much to do with 66 production as 65 does to 66 production

So a few things to add to the discussion. Most likely this may continue for a couple more years as we find more and new information, add it to the discussion and either change or fortify a current belief

[J_Speegle]

Jeff, never noticed this before but...on the ad you posted the carb is mounted backwards on the intake!

Never noticed that either. Guess they were separated during disassembly for some reason . Of course if they were recycling the items also that would produce a need to separate them.


As far as dating when the different sections of the film were made sure everyone understands that with editing and such the different sections could and possibly were made months apart then spliced together to form the "story" the film maker wanted to tell.

Of course black and white pictures and film make it difficult to determine some details

Cars could be just about any non-white color if you start comparing the color of the engine compartment, engine color and the exterior color its a hard one. Given the wheels (don't want to go back into the carb thing since that brings this discussion back to the engine one

I would agree they appear to be a group of possibly Hertz cars. Unfortunately we can see the VIN's on the papers attached to the windshield like we can in other stills from the factory. Radiator does have what appears to be a soldered on ID tag on the passenger side which again confirms the 66 time period after the real 66's were being built.

Wonder why the stack of tires and wheels are stored so close to the line since a wheel/tire swap wasn't needed. Maybe just short of storage space for ones from other cars and that is where they ended up.

There are some other details but will maybe post those later.

Happy Easter to all !

[SFM6S087]

Here are some excerpt pictures of two of the documents I referred to in reply #28.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

The other excerpt is from DSO 71-2510 dated 6/16/65  - ordering some 1965 chassis cars that will become 1966 GT350's (carryovers). Note that Shelby American is requesting the deletion of engine assembly C5ZE-6007-D554J and installation of C5ZE-6007-SE370.

Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production.

We know that D554J engines were regular 1965 289hp engines.

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

Steve

I am interested in hearing more given the very compelling evidence. I want to understand the context. The logical question with all due respect to the keeper of the flame who I hold in the highest regard is what information is it that gives Howard his high confidence level that is not being shared .

When Howard is good enough to assist me in my research I don't push him to share copies of documents that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

Plus, I don't think that's the question. I've presented plenty of evidence showing that Shelby American installed the Shelby engine components at least until the end of 1966 production. And the assembly line video that started this thread confirms that.

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

Lacking any evidence or information to the contrary, I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with the conclusion that S.A installed the 1966 engine accessories. I will soon post the rest of my evidence as promised. Even though it is completely unnecessary in the absence of anything to contradict what has already been presented. 

Steve

I didn't think a unreasonable question given the picture of the factory build sheet showing the normal hipo being substituted for the apparent Shelbized engine version that you posted. That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make . I know that was not your intention.    " Howard Pardee assures me that Ford rejected that request and installed the D554J engines. And S.A. never made that request again. At least not through the end of 1966 production." You can understand why I might want to have the same understanding so that I too could have a high confidence level in your point of view. In as courteous and respectful way possible I asked the question .

Bob,

I agree with you 100% that your question was not unreasonable and you were very courteous and respectful. And I sincerely apologize if any comment I made gave you the impression that I felt otherwise. And I courteously and respectfully replied to your question. Although I'm not sure why either of us needs to point that out. Courtesy and respect are usually self evident.

And for the record, I agree with you that it would be interesting to know the information that Howard has that he based his comments on. But, as already stated, I don't push him to reveal documents or information that he wishes to keep out of the public domain.

BTW, while I appreciate your polite effort to help me out, I did not contradict my own point in my previous post. I respectfully ask that you go back and read my post and review the DSO excerpt. It appears that you've reversed the content. I posted (and the DSO shows) that Shelby American was asking that the Shelbized engine be substituted for the normal hipo. Install SE370 (Shelbized version) and delete D554J (normal hipo). That's the request that Ford rejected. And that's part of the evidence that supports my point.

Now, I'm going to apologize ahead of time for the next paragraph. I don't want you to think I'm being confrontational or disrespectful or unreasonable. And I hate to be repetitive. But, because I respect and value your knowledge and opinion, I would really like an answer if you would be so kind.

For the fifth time in this thread, I ask you to please post whatever information you have that would counter the video that started this thread and the evidence I've presented that clearly show that S.A. installed the Shelby engine accessories at least through the end of 1966 production.

Thank you,
Steve

[SFM6S087]

First sorry I've not been able to show as much attention to the forum. Virus stuff has kept the family busy as well as other things. And like th evirus - doesn't appear it will be easing soon. Just don't have as much time to look deeply at the subject and data. With that said

The real question is why you think that's not the case. You must have some reason to keep pushing for more evidence on one side of this issue, without providing ANY evidence on the other side of this. Instead of asking for more evidence that Shelby American did that work, why don't you present something, ANYTHING, that would support the idea that Ford did it?

For the fourth time in this thread, I ask you to PLEASE let us in on the information you have that makes you doubt what has already been presented here.

In the hopes that both sided can be heard and the discussion can continue in a pleasant manner

I'm a bit confused why you gave grouped together 65, carry over and 66 production together and are using 65 information for 66 while not looking, also at 67 since all were built at the same plant and Shelby was still in the south. Think that should enter into the discussion if we're going to look at the whole subject.

Not sure of the "any evidence" statement since you posted the engine letter in two of your responses.

One excerpt is from the Intra-Company Communication dated May 7, 1965 that mentions intake manifolds and rear axle assemblies. (Special thanks to Bob Gaines for sharing this in a previous post on a different topic.)

If we're going to look at the whole subject - not the intended purpose of the thread as I can see - of engines being dressed at the engine plant or SA then we need to include in addition to the letter I would offer the following view of the paperwork from the paperwork of 71-2502 Indicating that as a change from 71-2501 the engines with the carb, intake, valve covers and other parts be part of this order. A change from the earlier order

I think that SE370 is the designation that Ford used for 289hp engines with Shelby accessories installed by Ford. And SE probably stood for "Shelby Engine" or maybe "Shelby Experimental." If you have a better explanation PLEASE share it here.

May need more research since 370 identification was used for another non- high performance V8 if the first couple of books I pulled were incorrect

You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant.

And in closing this time I respectfully would ask that you add to the discussion 67 production practices as it relates to the engine as IMHO it has as much to do with 66 production as 65 does to 66 production

So a few things to add to the discussion. Most likely this may continue for a couple more years as we find more and new information, add it to the discussion and either change or fortify a current belief

Jeff,

First, I will be praying for you and your family. And I understand being pressed for time. My job is considered essential so I'm still going to work as well as dealing with other pressures during this trying time. But I'm not complaining about that. I thank God every day that I still have my job.

Now to address your comments and questions in the order they were made.

I have mentioned 65's and carryovers in this discussion because of the following:
1. There are some 1965 GT350's and carryovers with black painted intakes. Which almost certainly means they received those intakes at Ford. For me, that makes them part of this discussion.
2. The DSO I have showing Shelby requesting the regular hipo's be deleted and Shelbized engines installed is for carryovers. It's proof that at least an attempt was make to do that. Pardee says that request was rejected by Ford, and never repeated by SA – at least not through the end of 1966 production. And that's at least partially confirmed by the fact that the first DSO for full spec 1966 cars has no mention of that engine substitution. I have a copy of that DSO, but didn't post it because it's several pages long and it's the absence of certain text that makes it significant. I didn't think it would be useful to post that and tell people notice that something is not there. But if you think that would advance this discussion I will post it.

I left out the 67's because I didn't see the tie-in. The pictures that Bob posted are interesting and certainly appear to prove that Ford installed the Shelby engine components – at least on those cars. But, for me, it didn't prove anything about the 1966 cars except that Ford could do that if they wanted to. And I didn't think that was ever in question.

You posted a repeat of the "Intra-Company Communication" form that I mentioned in reply #28 and placed online in reply #50. And your comments indicate to me that you consider that evidence of Ford installing the Shelby engine components on the 1966 cars. I disagree. That form is dated May 7, 1965 and appears to be a planning document with "examples" that mention manifold castings. For me that suggests that there were "plans" that apparently included having Ford install the intakes on the 1966 GT350's. But Ford and Shelby made plenty of "plans" that didn't come to fruition. And in this case the DSO's that I've mentioned (dated after that memo) indicate that's what happened – those "plans" didn't come to fruition. I included that memo in the timeline of documents that I posted because I thought it was worthy of mention. But it only proves that there may have been "plans" for Ford to install the intakes on the 1966 cars. I don't consider it evidence of that actually happening.

Thank you so much for the excerpt from DSO 71-2502. That's exactly what I've been looking for. Some evidence related to this topic that I was previously unaware of - something new to learn. Yee Ha! The copy you posted is not very clear, and I have to admit I'm not experienced at reading DSO sheets. Would you please devote one of your replies exclusively to explaining what's written there and what it means. Also, I'd like to know the date of that DSO and which 1965 cars it's for. You don't have to reveal the actual SFM numbers if you don't wish. But if you know roughly where those cars fit into the 1965 run that would be helpful. Were they early, middle, or late in the production run of 1965's? Again, thank you for posting that!

I appreciate your interest in researching the SE370 engine code.

You have the paragraph below which I don't understand:

"You have mentioned a number of times that some engines may have been built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose during the carry over period. I have seen pictures of what appears to be one of those at the plant."

It sounds like you have a picture that would be nice to see, but I don't understand the exact significance. And I don't recall mentioning anything about engines being built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. I know my memory is not what is should be, but I just don't remember that. And actually, I thought all the engines were built completely at the engine plant and installed at San Jose. Please educate me. (And forgive my poor memory.)

If you think there's a tie-in, then by all means add the 67 production practices to this discussion. I don't see the relevance, but as always, I'm ready to learn.

If I missed anything in this reply just poke me with a sharp stick and repeat the question.

Again, thanks for joining this discussion.
Steve

[SFM6S087]

Additional Evidence

I was hoping to have Jeff Speegle's input on the following information before posting it here. But I've learned that he has much more important demands on his time right now. We're fortunate that he's managed to participate to some limited degree in this discussion. But I can see that my attempt to have him critique this before I post it was an unreasonable request. With that said, here is the additional evidence that I mentioned in previous posts.

In the following paragraphs I mention engine tags and decals. I know that most 1965/66 GT350's lost their engine tags in the production process. But a few didn't. So I mention the tags in this discussion in the interest of technical accuracy.

It's my understanding that Ford had a different ordering code for each variation of an engine. And some part of that code was on the tags and decals of those engines. For 289hp engines in 1965-66 the decal code was the same as the last four digits of the ordering code.

For example, in 1965 the ordering code for a 289hp was C5ZE-6007-D554J. Thus the tags & decals for the 1965 GT350's and carryovers would read 554J. And the tags & decals on the 1966 GT350s followed the same pattern – being 245S or 246S depending on the transmission.

Based on the process described above I would expect Ford to create a different ordering code for engines that received their Shelby components at Ford. And I would think that some version of that ordering code would be on those engine tags & decals – possibly the last four digits.

Have you ever seen a 1965 or 66 GT350 that had anything other than 554J, 245S or 246S on the engine tag or decal? I haven't.

That indicates to me that no 1965 or 66 GT350 received a Shelbyized engine at Ford. (With the exception of the small handful of 1965 & carryover cars that had black painted intakes. Those were discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat that here.)

According to DSO71-2510 it looks like the ordering code for a 1965 289hp with Shelby engine accessories installed by Ford was C5ZE-6007-SE370. It would seem that some version of SE370 would be on the engine decal of any car that received such an engine. And if that code changed for 1966 then the 1966 version of that code would have been on those engine decals.

Even if I'm wrong about SE370 being the designation for a Shelbyized 1965 289hp, this argument still stands up. The fact that the only engine codes found on 1965-66 GT350's are 554J, 245S or 246S indicate that those engines were all standard 289hp's when they left Ford. And received their Shelby engine accessories at Shelby American.

If you disagree or have evidence or knowledge that contradicts what I've posted here, please jump in and share what you have. I'm ready to learn.

Please keep in mind that this is "additional" evidence to what I've already presented on this topic. The icing on the cake so to speak. The cake still exists; with or without this icing. I believe the above to be accurate and persuasive, but even if it's not, the previous evidence stands on its own and still proves my case – Shelby American installed the Shelby engine accessories on the 1965-66 GT350's (except for the few cars with black painted intakes.)

And don't forget the video that started this thread showing Cobra intakes with Holley carbs being installed on 1966 GT350's on the Shelby American assembly line in 1966. That's pretty solid, stand-alone evidence right there. Unless you don't believe your lying eyes. Ha, ha!

[Note: Some of my previous posts were misunderstood for either their tone or content. So, for anyone who doesn't catch it, let me clearly state – that "lying eyes" comment is a joke – my feeble attempt to lighten up this discussion with a little corny humor.]

Steve

[chris NOS]

thank you Steve for your time and your work to find all the infos you share here !And i feel you have the good attitude , "ready to learn " if something else show up .