67 GT500 Export Brace and Fiberglass Question

[67GT500#1594]

This export brace was on my car and believe it to be original to the car. I've just never seen another car with the multiple pattern holes. Ive met and know the original owners of the car and neither replaced it nor would know to replace it. My car has a few other interesting pieces on it that really don't make sense either with the fiberglass. Totally different mounting techniques? Thanks for any and all the help!

Regards,
Matt

[Bob Gaines]

This export brace was on my car and believe it to be original to the car. I've just never seen another car with the multiple pattern holes. Ive met and know the original owners of the car and neither replaced it nor would know to replace it. My car has a few other interesting pieces on it that really don't make sense either with the fiberglass. Totally different mounting techniques? Thanks for any and all the help!

Regards,
Matt

It appears to be a original style 67/68 export brace that someone has drill drill holes (smaller ones) so as to fit a 65/66 Shelby. Past owner drilled holes that are not factory. Fiberglass end caps used the nut clips and not studs. Upper scoops look odd too.

[mustang245]

Have something similar on my 67 T-5 (export car). The car hasn't been messed with a lot, I also believe it is original to the car.

[Bob Gaines]

Have something similar on my 67 T-5 (export car). The car hasn't been messed with a lot, I also believe it is original to the car.

Why do you think the holes would be drilled smaller ?

[J_Speegle]

Have something similar on my 67 T-5 (export car). The car hasn't been messed with a lot, I also believe it is original to the car.

Does it happen to be a NJ built car?  And was it possibly a late built car?

[shelbydoug]

OO, OO! Mr. Kotter!

Wasn't there something about this written in an SOA newsletter in 73 or so?

Something about the early brace not being available at that moment and using a later brace modified to fit as a service part?

Then Ford "re-issued" both in service parts?

OK Arnold, go sit down now.

[Bob Gaines]

The facts are that it is not typical to find a duel pattern export brace on a 67 or 68 Shelby. There was no apparent need to use a modified export brace in early 67 production as vintage pictures and observations indicate. With no apparent shortage of export braces it boils down to what is more likely past owner modified or a factory modified using different size holes ?

[mustang245]

Metuchen built.

Have something similar on my 67 T-5 (export car). The car hasn't been messed with a lot, I also believe it is original to the car.

Does it happen to be a NJ built car?  And was it possibly a late built car?

[J_Speegle]

Metuchen built.

Thanks

If I may ask. When was it built?

[mustang245]

It was built 4/4/67. 

[The Going Thing]

OO, OO! Mr. Kotter!

Wasn't there something about this written in an SOA newsletter in 73 or so?

Something about the early brace not being available at that moment and using a later brace modified to fit as a service part?

Then Ford "re-issued" both in service parts?

OK Arnold, go sit down now.

Whhhhaaaapppppppppp.. To the back on the head.   

I saw one like this at the Veteran's swap meet in Long Beach,CA.   The owner said it was from an early 67 car and had been modified from a 65-6 brace.
I didn't know enough to comment either way. Is that what this is?

[67GT500#1594]

I'm not sure myself. My car sat for a very long time before it was completed? I know both of the original owners and they both said it's always been there? Now, the only thing me and another Forum member can figure out is it just might have been replaced, maybe? The car suffered a clutch explosion in 1969/70 that took out the power steering, the master cylinder, and the hood. It also damaged the inner panels and hood hinges. The only thing I can surmise is it damaged the export brace too and this was the only replacement part available and someone modified it. Now, the strange part is it has small indentions where the 67 would bolt that were stamped where a 65/66 one clearly does not! IDK. Definitely a Ford piece that's been there at LEAST 50 plus years!

[J_Speegle]

It was built 4/4/67.

Thanks  it puts your car and picture into context with others.

So with that when and were I can report that I've got almost a half dozen examples of New Jersey built Mustangs with the export brace with both hole patterns as shown in mustang245 earlier post above. All from the spring of 67 production period at that plant.  So that suggests that at least one pallet or crate of these was delivered to that plant for those cars. Haven't seen any service replacements/NOS ones like this, often a likely place to dispose of old left over stock, so not sure how they ended up on cars approx 8 months after the design changed. Just reporting my findings and data collection.

IMHO for one to end up on a San Jose built car we would need to accept that one some how got tossed into the crate going to that plant, more than one did (if so we would have likely seen many more examples pop up on Shelby's) or it got put on the car earlier in life as a replacement - possibly the results of the incidence you mentioned or something else like misplacing it during the repair.

Going forward you get the choice of making the decision. Either replace it with what would be typical, expected or maybe originally there or leave it as you found it and explain the difference to everyone that will ask about it. You also get to be "that guy with the car with the ...."

[Bob Gaines]

OO, OO! Mr. Kotter!

Wasn't there something about this written in an SOA newsletter in 73 or so?

Something about the early brace not being available at that moment and using a later brace modified to fit as a service part?

Then Ford "re-issued" both in service parts?

OK Arnold, go sit down now.

Whhhhaaaapppppppppp.. To the back on the head.   

I saw one like this at the Veteran's swap meet in Long Beach,CA.   The owner said it was from an early 67 car and had been modified from a 65-6 brace.
I didn't know enough to comment either way. Is that what this is?

Not to be confused with Jeff's anomaly observations on Mustang245 picture . In the case of the picture that the OP posted it appears to be a 67-70 version that has been modified with the equal spaced pattern used on 65/66 GT350. The smaller holes indicate it was most likely past owner modified IMO. The typical 65/66 GT350 brace uses the larger holes .Given the photos of early production 67 GT350's with a unmodified brace I am skeptical of a anecdotal evidence story about a short supply. If that was true logically the brace tobe modified would start out as a typical larger hole 65/66 pattern brace modified to the later 67 pattern. The example picture does not indicates that. I would like to point out that the 65/66 equal spaced brace has always seemed to be harder to find . They many times bring twice as much at swap meets because of rarity compared to the 67-70 version.  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one comes to mind.

[shelbydoug]

I'm not sure myself. My car sat for a very long time before it was completed? I know both of the original owners and they both said it's always been there? Now, the only thing me and another Forum member can figure out is it just might have been replaced, maybe? The car suffered a clutch explosion in 1969/70 that took out the power steering, the master cylinder, and the hood. It also damaged the inner panels and hood hinges. The only thing I can surmise is it damaged the export brace too and this was the only replacement part available and someone modified it. Now, the strange part is it has small indentions where the 67 would bolt that were stamped where a 65/66 one clearly does not! IDK. Definitely a Ford piece that's been there at LEAST 50 plus years!

See here's the thing. EVEN if it was installed originally, it's still "wrong". That's what everyone is trying to tell you.

Like the "beehives" without washers.