Shock tower caps

[bomb6391]

I've done quite a bit of searching, but apparently not enough to find the correct answer.  Some pictures of restored 67's have shock tower caps with the welded washers and some do not. 

I guess the simple question: does a 67 GT500 have the regular caps or the welded washer type?

Thanks!
Mike

[shelbydoug]

It should have the welded double thick washers.

Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?

[Bob Gaines]

It should have the welded double thick washers.

Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?

I would say it like this. The cars were meant to have the reinforced heavy duty upper shock brackets (Ford called beehives in paperwork) . It was part of the export package. There were very short periods of times on the assemblyline when for whatever reason a mistake was made and some cars did not receive them. When they are found missing on a car it is more likely a past owner issue then a assemblyline mistake. Saying the same thing only different..  

[bomb6391]

Guys,

Thanks for the clarification and additional info!

Mike

[Bossbill]

Does D. Mathews have the info on which cars didn't have them?

[shelbydoug]

It should have the welded double thick washers.

Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?

I would say it like this. The cars were meant to have the reinforced heavy duty upper shock brackets (Ford called beehives in paperwork) . It was part of the export package. There were very short periods of times on the assemblyline when for whatever reason a mistake was made and some cars did not receive them. When they are found missing on a car it is more likely a past owner issue then a assemblyline mistake. Saying the same thing only different..

"the same thing, only different" ? 

I don't know "Special Ed" but I suspect this sounds suspiciously like him? 


I caught my wife telling someone the other day that I'm "freakin' nutz!" 

I can't imagine why she might have said that? 

[Bob Gaines]

Does D. Mathews have the info on which cars didn't have them?

We know it happened at the factory sometimes . 66 production has a few instances .67 production has more. 68-70 didn't seem to have any concrete problems that can be identified.  Lack of supply is the easiest explanation. Dave has owner info on the subject I believe.He has correlated based on that unless some DSO info has come to light.   

[Special Ed]

I have never seen them missing on a unmolested boss 429 yet and some have a color code on them and that's just the way it is!!

[shelbydoug]

that's just the way it is!!

I expected that. 

[George Schalk]

I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps.  It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car. 

[shelbydoug]

I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps.  It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.

As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?

[J_Speegle]

........ Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?

Could be historical significant to some owners and restorers. Sometimes these details can represent a trend - let us say for discussion there were 100 cars all built consecutively. Some may still see it as a mistake while others a choice (in this case) by Ford and by changing the restoration takes on a more vanilla or cookie cutter final look that than represent how the car was truthfully built.

In this example it may have not been a "mistake" but a need.

Just discussing both sides of the coin and not meant as an argument

[George Schalk]

I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps.  It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.

As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?

Well, the 67 cars were all supposed to have functional lower brake scoops and lights in the upper scoops, but as we all know, that isn't the case.  I get that some want their cars "the way it was intended to be", but then there are some that do not want to change the original characteristics of a car and prefer to restore it to the exact way it rolled out of SA.

[Bob Gaines]

I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps.  It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.

As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?

Well, the 67 cars were all supposed to have functional lower brake scoops and lights in the upper scoops, but as we all know, that isn't the case.  I get that some want their cars "the way it was intended to be", but then there are some that do not want to change the original characteristics of a car and prefer to restore it to the exact way it rolled out of SA.

You are misinformed. The functional brake scoop change and lights in the upper scoop lights was a on purpose evolution change made by the powers to be at SA. The reinforced upper shock bracket sometimes not getting added was a mistake /supply problem and not a conscious change by SA otherwise it would have been carried out consistently over the rest of production like the lower scoop and scoop light that you used as examples. The times that the assemblyline didn't use the reinforced upper shock brackets was few and far between only effecting  a dozen or two number of cars at a time randomly during production and not hundreds or thousands of cars like your examples. 

[Bob Gaines]

If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.