Shock tower caps

[George Schalk]

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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

[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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit.  FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.

[George Schalk]

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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit.  FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.

Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts?  Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have.  How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side.  At this point it's all personal opinion.  The best thing to do is take a poll on original cars with or without reinforced shock mounts.

[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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit.  FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.

Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts?  Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have.  How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side.  At this point it's all personal opinion.

You are misinformed again.  For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.   

[George Schalk]

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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit.  FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.

Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts?  Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have.  How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side.  At this point it's all personal opinion.

You are misinformed again.  For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.

Is the information that has been complied able to be shared?  I would be very interested to see this and I'm sure others would like to see it as well.  In my collection, I have 2 unrestored '67s that do not have the reinforced mounts.  I have pictures of other unrestored cars without the reinforced mounts also. 

[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.

My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts.  I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.

I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit.  FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.

Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts?  Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have.  How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side.  At this point it's all personal opinion.

You are misinformed again.  For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.

Is the information that has been complied able to be shared?  I would be very interested to see this and I'm sure others would like to see it as well.  In my collection, I have 2 unrestored '67s that do not have the reinforced mounts.  I have pictures of other unrestored cars without the reinforced mounts also.

No wonder you were so enthusiastic about the subject since you had skin in the game so to speak.  You know Dave Mathews is the SAAC registrar and so you should be asking him instead of me. Hopefully you find that your cars falls in with others built the same time that have the same mistake so as to reinforce your perception that it came that way.

[George Schalk]

Skin in the game?  I was only enthusiastic about the subject because you tried to discredit what I have to say when you have no proof or documentation yourself on the subject.  The non-reinforced caps are an observation I've made over the years.  I respect that you are a wealth of information on these cars, but if you aren't 100% sure on a subject, don't try to discredit what others have to say. 

[The Going Thing]

My car being an early car is lacking the reinforced bee hives. They were replaced because of the damage done to car.  I don't remember them having the washers. I actually could have overlooked them.

[George Schalk]

Skin in the game?  I was only enthusiastic about the subject because you tried to discredit what I have to say when you have no proof or documentation yourself on the subject.  The non-reinforced caps are an observation I've made over the years.  I respect that you are a wealth of information on these cars, but if you aren't 100% sure on a subject, don't try to discredit what others have to say.

George,my 47 years of school of hard knocks studying and owning Shelby's which includes 100's of original car observations , 27 years of concours Shelby judging at the highest level for as many as 3 different organizations give weight to my testament of proof and documentation.  What statement did I discredit you on that was not true? Was it the poor example of the SA purposely discontinuing the functional lower brake scoops and upper scoop light comparison to the different time random mistake of missing correct parts done by Ford on the SJ assemblyline ? Was it your position that any 67 Shelby "can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts" and I assume without further clarification on your part be equally correct?. Or was it that you were not aware of other ways to give reasonable provenience to out of the ordinary claims. As far as those statements are concerned I am 100% sure of my point of view. If you feel slighted/discredited because my points did not align with yours , GET OVER IT AND TAKE A PILL.     

Wow!!  I just lost ALL respect for you.  You are a legend in your own mind. 

[1175]

#2325 no washers welded on shock tower caps.  Know many other owners that do not have them also.

There are a few other details multiple owners share that don't follow the 'norm'. 

I will add that history should be fact of what really happened, not what should have happened.

Jon

[shelbydoug]

It's a good thing that pistol dueling was outlawed but then that is just an opinion with no data? Probably there is someone here that would defend it?

I think that you guys would shoot at each other. Oh wait, maybe you did already and both missed?

[Coralsnake]

Awesome thread

My feeling has always been the benefit of the doubt should go to the concours entrant. Unfortunately the concours judging has become very rigid and this combined with the lack of any kind of guidance, has alienated many from participation.

The enlightened position would be more inclusive with some clear guidelines.

If you want to go nuts, that would be for Division 1.

[roddster]

  Well stated Coralsnake.

  The issue as I see it is: 1) back when, we all thought somebody changed them to the washers missing type, blowing off the stories that "no, I bought it this way". Which may or may not be true.
2) just because it is reported to the registrar as being so, we all know some folks are just BSing this.

[DRGT350]

so - for education purpose:
I thought that the "shock tower washers" were on '65 and '66 GT 350's as the Koni Shocks were somewhat less wide than the standard shocks and thus the washers... AND the longer bolts to hold the shocks were added as well..  is this correct?

The '67's having standard shocks would need neither...  or were they "supposed" to have washers on the tower caps without the longer bolts?

BTW - my '67 has neither the washers or the longer bolts...

Dave

[Bob Gaines]

so - for education purpose:
I thought that the "shock tower washers" were on '65 and '66 GT 350's as the Koni Shocks were somewhat less wide than the standard shocks and thus the washers... AND the longer bolts to hold the shocks were added as well..  is this correct?

The '67's having standard shocks would need neither...  or were they "supposed" to have washers on the tower caps without the longer bolts?

BTW - my '67 has neither the washers or the longer bolts...

Dave

The reinforced upper brackets were not Shelby unique. It was part of something called a export package. The heavy duty items in the package were first designed for rougher roads encountered in Europe and other places hence export package stuck. Heavy duty adjustable shocks and a one piece stronger firewall brace were also part of the package . The Koni shocks evolved to another heavy duty adjustable shock mfg starting in early 1966. That new shock was one that Ford had control of the design and most likely cost too.  The different bolts for the Koni's was in response to a smaller surface area on the Koni shock mounting cross bar. The special bolts had a larger head to bridge the smaller surface area of the cross bar mounting.  Different bolts were not needed when used with the different mfg shocks that Ford had contracted to be built to their specifications by Gabriel . The relative thin metal of the upper shock bracket was prone to fatigue and cracking under harsh conditions unless reinforced . The one piece upper firewall brace commonly refereed to as a export brace was made of thick steel compared to the the two separate sheet metal formed stock firewall braces on regular Mustangs.The one piece thick steel brace did not allow as much flex in the front end on rough roads as the stock braces. All of these export package components had value in road racing handling as well which is why they were chosen as part of the specified design of 65-70 Shelby's