French 1966 Carroll Shelby Interview

[Bob Gaines]

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

Steve, I too have some issues that are not allowing me 100% time spent for research on this discussion . I am currently going through SA factory memos I have in my files to sort out any that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Some of the info is new and contradicts some of your theories. I may take me a few days to get everything sorted out and a response posted .Thank you in advance for your patience.

[SFM6S087]

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 . 

Thanks for the kind words. We're fortunate to have this wonderful community of Shelby enthusiasts to share in and assist with our journey of learning. And for me, getting corrections to things I "think' I already know is just as exciting as discovering something completely new.

That's one of the great benefits of posting something here. There are plenty of real experts (I'm not one) willing to get me back on track when I've gone off the rails.

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

Steve, I too have some issues that are not allowing me 100% time spent for research on this discussion . I am currently going through SA factory memos I have in my files to sort out any that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Some of the info is new and contradicts some of your theories. I may take me a few days to get everything sorted out and a response posted .Thank you in advance for your patience.

Thanks, Bob. I really appreciate you taking the time to contribute what you have to this discussion. I'll try to be patient, but I have to admit that the prospect of seeing new evidence on this topic has me excited. I can't tell you how elated I was when I saw the video that started this thread. Every new piece of the puzzle is another thrilling find.

Steve

[J_Speegle]

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.

Agree this may support that Ford did ass the parts during that time period and the whole thing about including the aluminum engine ID tag and paper tags as discussed in another post. This supports the idea that there was another way to "mark" the engines as being different - special

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.

Do we have access to the paperwork for the same group of cars if this was rejected and in turn reordered?

And do we have the following order since these often refer back to the earlier group/DSO?

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.

Since these cars were also produced (focusing just on the small blocks for the moment) with the same engine ID stickers as non- Shelby's that is another clue suggesting that the engines were otherwise identified as different other than the paper sticker number solely

[J_Speegle]

Trying to stay with one focus at a time.   At some point it would be nice to get back to the details shown in the plant section of the film and the other details contained in that short slip

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.....

Forgive me for shortening the quote the long quotes (were readers can go back and reread the original) produce allot of "fill" for readers screens.

First would like to start off with the fact that all of this discussion will not likely bring us all to the same conclusion since it requires each of us to ignore some documents and accept others since not everything aligns.  Even if we did it would still not lead it to an indisputable answer only a current understanding. We can all think of things in the past that were considered "facts" only to be disproved later.  The history of Shelby's, their production numbers, and other details have gone through many changes and when something new is found, discussed and either accepted for that time period and possibly beyond – or at least until some new clue is discovered.

But with all that said things can be learned by sharing and the exchange of views as well as knowledge. Will try and keep the post short since I accept the fact that most will turn out after the first two or three paragraphs.

Believe your assumptions in relationship to engine identification are incorrect. Bottom line is that the engine plant had practices in use that identified "special" engines built for special orders in addition to the standard ID stickers placed on water pumps, oil filters, coils, valve covers and so on. On method was placing a label on the driver's side valve cover with the additional identifier such as a code or just DSO as like Sterling plant did for the rearend (written on the housing) destined for use in the 65-66 Shelby's


As far as the "SE370" believe that was likely a misprint or a mistake that was later corrected or just something that was dropped - like other things you suggested happen. That number would place the engine within a grouping of FE style engines in the Ford engine coding while there is "room" for other numbers available in the small block range and  it would have been just as easy to add "SE" to the 554 since that was the base engine. Those possibilities added to the fact that they did not need the engine id number for identification purposes as shown above lead me to believe this is something other than something that reached production.

Sorry I went a bit too long

[J_Speegle]

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.)

Yes maybe we can work something out with me bringing something to the convention - like Howard there are some limitations of some of the stuff given or purchased that restrict my posting.

Little confused by your statement above - sorry must be me - but I thought the whole discussion was about where the engines were completed - Shelby or at Ford and also during what time periods since we have some periods that you have included your currently accept they were. If I understand correctly during the late 65 into carry over (black intake engines) and 67.

More to follow

[SFM6S087]

Replies in blue.

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.

Agree this may support that Ford did ass the parts during that time period and the whole thing about including the aluminum engine ID tag and paper tags as discussed in another post. This supports the idea that there was another way to "mark" the engines as being different - special

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.

Do we have access to the paperwork for the same group of cars if this was rejected and in turn reordered?

I do not have copies of any of the paperwork involving Ford refusing to do the engine substitution for DSO 71-2510. I accept Pardee's word for that. I don't know if a different DSO was submitted or if Ford simply denied that substitution and filled the rest of the order as submitted on that DSO.

And do we have the following order since these often refer back to the earlier group/DSO?

Here are the DSOs' I'm aware of that would play into that time period.
71-2509 Dated 6/16/15 for 33 package tray carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2510 Dated 6/16/65   for 67 rear seat carryovers (I have a copy)
71-2511 Dated 7-2-65 for 100 rear seat carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2512 Dated 7-2-65 for 50 rear seat carryovers (I do not have a copy)
71-2601 Dated 09-17-65 for the first group of full spec 1966 GT350's

As you can see above. There were a pair of DSO's for carryovers that were submitted after 71-2510. I do not have copies of those. Then DSO 71-2601 for the first full spec 1966 GT350's was placed – with no mention of the engine substitution. I do have a copy of that. I'll post it here if you wish. Let me know.

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.

Since these cars were also produced (focusing just on the small blocks for the moment) with the same engine ID stickers as non- Shelby's that is another clue suggesting that the engines were otherwise identified as different other than the paper sticker number solely

To be clear, you're saying that in 1967 Ford used the same engine tag and decal designations for two different configurations – 289hp with Shelby components for GT350's, and 289hp without Shelby components for other cars. Both of those engine builds got the same tag/decal designation. Correct? If so, that's great information to have. THANKS!

[SFM6S087]

Replies in blue.

Trying to stay with one focus at a time.   At some point it would be nice to get back to the details shown in the plant section of the film and the other details contained in that short slip

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.....

Forgive me for shortening the quote the long quotes (were readers can go back and reread the original) produce allot of "fill" for readers screens.

First would like to start off with the fact that all of this discussion will not likely bring us all to the same conclusion since it requires each of us to ignore some documents and accept others since not everything aligns.  Even if we did it would still not lead it to an indisputable answer only a current understanding. We can all think of things in the past that were considered "facts" only to be disproved later.  The history of Shelby's, their production numbers, and other details have gone through many changes and when something new is found, discussed and either accepted for that time period and possibly beyond – or at least until some new clue is discovered.

Hey, it's okay to disagree. Discussing various views and presenting conflicting evidence is always educational for me. Hopefully at some point we can compose a list of the evidence on either side of this issue – possibly in a timeline form. Then others reading this can come to their own conclusions. And who knows, maybe they'll spot something significant that we both missed. All good fun.

But with all that said things can be learned by sharing and the exchange of views as well as knowledge. Will try and keep the post short since I accept the fact that most will turn out after the first two or three paragraphs.

Believe your assumptions in relationship to engine identification are incorrect. Bottom line is that the engine plant had practices in use that identified "special" engines built for special orders in addition to the standard ID stickers placed on water pumps, oil filters, coils, valve covers and so on. On method was placing a label on the driver's side valve cover with the additional identifier such as a code or just DSO as like Sterling plant did for the rearend (written on the housing) destined for use in the 65-66 Shelby's

Thanks, for the engine tag/decal info. From what you've posted it looks like the engine tag/decal codes don't prove anything. I'll note that in my research files.


As far as the "SE370" believe that was likely a misprint or a mistake that was later corrected or just something that was dropped - like other things you suggested happen. That number would place the engine within a grouping of FE style engines in the Ford engine coding while there is "room" for other numbers available in the small block range and  it would have been just as easy to add "SE" to the 554 since that was the base engine. Those possibilities added to the fact that they did not need the engine id number for identification purposes as shown above lead me to believe this is something other than something that reached production.

Again, thanks for the info.

Sorry I went a bit too long

[SFM6S087]

Replies in green.

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.)

Yes maybe we can work something out with me bringing something to the convention - like Howard there are some limitations of some of the stuff given or purchased that restrict my posting.

I don't generally get to the conventions so if you have something you wish to share that should not be posted in public we'll need to work out some other arrangement. You could email me a copy. Or you could just describe what you have in an email. If you just tell me the type of document, date, and pertinent info I'll take you word for it. You don't have to send an actual copy if you don't want to.

Little confused by your statement above - sorry must be me - but I thought the whole discussion was about where the engines were completed - Shelby or at Ford and also during what time periods since we have some periods that you have included your currently accept they were. If I understand correctly during the late 65 into carry over (black intake engines) and 67.

My apology. I misunderstood what you meant by "being built completely." In my mind, every engine Ford installed into a car had been "built completely" at Ford. And the discussion was about where those engines received their Shelby components. Oddly, I didn't think of that as completing the engine build. I always thought of that as a conversion process. Again, my apology for the misunderstanding.

More to follow

[SFM6S087]

A major complicating factor is that lots of things got written on paper - in memos and even on firm orders - that didn't end up actually happening (like the engine substitution on the DSO that I posted). For me, that makes period photos (like the 1967 cars that Bob posted) and videos (like the one from 1966 that started this topic) even more valuable. And makes it a priority to try to gather as much evidence as possible. I appreciate everyone who contributes to that search.

Steve

[Bob Gaines]

   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

[Bob Gaines]

   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

A 5/4/65 staff meeting has Junor explaining that the engine delay at the Cleveland engine plant would affect the number of engines available for units being built at SJ . This also indicates that SA was depending on Ford to add the parts on the engine. See attachment 4. On 5/7/65 a Intra-company Communication went out that discussed the various Shelby engine parts numbers need for projected production engines so that they could be ordered and have time to be on hand at the Cleveland engine plant. See attachment 5. I have another GT350 production document that is not dated when it was produced but mentions 5/19/65 which may have been when DSO's were ordered because of more then one DSO attributed to the same date. On this sheet it mentions that one of the order's the 554-J-3-SE370 engine which is apparently the Shelbyized hipo engine was going to be changed to a 289 hipo engine and SA was going to do the conversion. This was because it was noted at the bottom of the page that the engine plant is unable to make the special engines before model changeover. See attachment 6. This wording is significant because it was matter of fact that the "special engines "had been previously installed at Ford and that also insinuated that after some time after model changeover the special engines would resume being shipped. I would like to mention in response to the theory that because the metal engine tags didn't have a special number on them that means they were not a Ford produced Shelbyized engine. I would speculate that was because only the prefix 554 J was needed on the Shelbized engine for identification which was more for internals then cosmetics. This theory is supported by the fact that the documents have established that the Ford Shelbyized engines were ordered and installed at the Ford SJ plant. We also have the visual historic documentation of the black intakes which of course SA would not have done. I would also add as a point of context given, we do have evidence for those that the 67 GT350 engines did not have a unusual metal tag stamped number or out of the ordinary paper coil tag number. We have historical photo evidence of both the unconverted cars in the lot with engine mods added and close ups of engines with the standard hipo paper tag. This is significant because if you work backwards and consider it was good enough for the 67-model year it must be good enough for the 66-model year. The same can be said for the 65-model year in that if it was done in 65 than it is reasonable to assume that it would be done the same in 66. That is for the engine tags. So, if you have never seen a special engine tag on a 65,66 or 67 Shelby engine then you are not alone because it can be reasonably concluded that there is none. 

[Bob Gaines]

   Get ready for a long winded boring post but you can blame it on Steve who requested it 5 times. I will separate them into 3 separate posts with attachment pictures.The documentation is from the John Atzbach Collection and the ones I copied from will be available in lots at the Mecum auction scheduled in June . In discussing my belief that Ford at various times installed the Shelby engine parts on SA's behalf in 66 production like it has been establish was done in later 65 production and all of 67 production I will have to go outside the 66 time frame to establish context because of the lack of definitive evidence for SA doing all of the installs throughout entire 1966 production year.  The first mention of Ford installing the Shelby engine parts I could find was 1/26/65 Memo which talks about have the Shelby engine parts added to the engines delivered to SJ plant. See attachment 1. By having Ford engine plant add the Shelby engine parts it would save labor and solve the problem of extra intakes, carbs, valve covers, oil pans etc. that would have to be sold or scrapped to try and recoup lost profit.  The second time was a 4 /7/65 staff meeting  when Junor mentioned  a delay in engine shipments because of the changes to the engines adding Shelby parts) would delay the shipment until 4/26 which indicates that Ford was in fact installing the parts at that time . According to the memo the engines because of the delay would be after May 65. See attachment 2. A 5/3/65 Product management meeting mentions the 1966 full specification car will be constructed at SA and lists the components none of which mention engine items. The conclusion can be reasonably assumed that those would be on the converted engine installed at the SJ plant. See attachment 3.

A 5/4/65 staff meeting has Junor explaining that the engine delay at the Cleveland engine plant would affect the number of engines available for units being built at SJ . This also indicates that SA was depending on Ford to add the parts on the engine. See attachment 4. On 5/7/65 a Intra-company Communication went out that discussed the various Shelby engine parts numbers need for projected production engines so that they could be ordered and have time to be on hand at the Cleveland engine plant. See attachment 5. I have another GT350 production document that is not dated when it was produced but mentions 5/19/65 which may have been when DSO's were ordered because of more then one DSO attributed to the same date. On this sheet it mentions that one of the order's the 554-J-3-SE370 engine which is apparently the Shelbyized hipo engine was going to be changed to a 289 hipo engine and SA was going to do the conversion. This was because it was noted at the bottom of the page that the engine plant is unable to make the special engines before model changeover. See attachment 6. This wording is significant because it was matter of fact that the "special engines "had been previously installed at Ford and that also insinuated that after some time after model changeover the special engines would resume being shipped. I would like to mention in response to the theory that because the metal engine tags didn't have a special number on them that means they were not a Ford produced Shelbyized engine. I would speculate that was because only the prefix 554 J was needed on the Shelbized engine for identification which was more for internals then cosmetics. This theory is supported by the fact that the documents have established that the Ford Shelbyized engines were ordered and installed at the Ford SJ plant. We also have the visual historic documentation of the black intakes which of course SA would not have done. I would also add as a point of context given, we do have evidence for those that the 67 GT350 engines did not have a unusual metal tag stamped number or out of the ordinary paper coil tag number. We have historical photo evidence of both the unconverted cars in the lot with engine mods added and close ups of engines with the standard hipo paper tag. This is significant because if you work backwards and consider it was good enough for the 67-model year it must be good enough for the 66-model year. The same can be said for the 65-model year in that if it was done in 65 than it is reasonable to assume that it would be done the same in 66. That is for the engine tags. So, if you have never seen a special engine tag on a 65,66 or 67 Shelby engine then you are not alone because it can be reasonably concluded that there is none.

A staff meeting on 10/26/65 that the new highriser intake that could be used for automatics would be available Friday 10/29/65 with automatics (hipo version no doubt) going into production on that Monday 11/1/65. See attachment 7. For those unfamiliar with the significance this was most likely the changeover from the small letter S1MS Cobra intake to the S2MS large letter Cobra intake which had two vacuum ports one for PCV and another for accessories like automatic transmission. The S2MS intake became the standard intake from that time forward with the second port plugged off when used on 4 speed cars. The way the document is worded indicates to me that the intakes where at or near the same place that the automatic transmissions were. In this case the Cleveland plant. It doesn't say the intakes would be at SA on Friday or that the automatics would be at the SJ plant or the Cleveland engine plant. It is written in such a way that it is reasonable to assume that both would be near or together.   They would only be near or together if the intakes were being installed at the engine plant or Ford Facility and not at SA. This evidence brings me to the conclusion that although there most likely was an interruption in Ford installing the engine Shelby engine parts on engines destined to become GT350's there were others that were installed at the Ford Cleveland engine plant during the 66 production . The time line of late 65 GT350 with Ford Shelbyized engines, Carryover 66 GT350's with Shelbyized  engines and all 67 GT350 with Ford Shelbyized engines adds to the reasonable conclusion that at least some of the other 66 GT350 production used Ford Shelbyized engines too. I would point out that if the French video was not a staged publicity shot it would be after approximately car 900 given the Autolite carb. If there was interruption for some reason that forced SA to once again add the Shelby engine parts it would be only until Ford/Shelby got the issue resolved because the loss of profit was  a great incentive to resolve the issue. It is obvious that this was not a tremendous hurdle given the engine parts were installed exclusively at the engine plant in all of 67, the vast majority of 68 (some GT350 intakes)and all of 69/70. We don't have all of the pieces to the puzzle but given the time line and the way things were done before and after 66 production this is my point of view until more definitive evidence suggest otherwise.   

[shelbydoug]

Professor Gaines at his best. I am humbled.

[J_Speegle]

Thanks for posting and to John  Atzbach  for allowing/making them available