VERY Original '67 GT500 on BaT

[427hunter]

That looks like a no question, well cared for, original solid car.

[George Schalk]

Very interesting to see another original unrestored '67 Shelby that is not equipped with the reinforced front upper shock mounts.  They look to be original to the car, unless Vern can elaborate if they were changed out at some point.

[Vernon Estes]

Very interesting to see another original unrestored '67 Shelby that is not equipped with the reinforced front upper shock mounts.  They look to be original to the car, unless Vern can elaborate if they were changed out at some point.

Hey George,

They appear to be original to the car. My understanding is that the hats were supposed to get the washers/reinforcements installed as was part of the export suspension package on all 65-67 Shelbys.That said, there are numerous examples of 66s and 67s out there which didn't receive the washers for whatever reason...I've never seen a 65 without them which was was convinced was original, have you?....could have been a simple oversight on some cars, maybe some kind of a supplier issue, or maybe a factory oversight on small batches of cars?

I wasn't there when the car was built so I wouldn't know. Maybe our cars were "Friday afternoon" cars! 

Kind regards,
Vern

[Fast Fords]

I had a fairly original 67 500 and it did not have the reinforcements either. Could have been changed out I guess but thought I would mention it.

[George Schalk]

Hey Vern,
It seems it may be more common than not for a 67 Shelby to not have the reinforced shock mounts.  I wonder what the ratio really is for cars that left the plant with the reinforced caps vs. the cars that didn't receive them.  I noticed the root beer colored Weberized 67 500 you had/have did not have the reinforced caps either.  Interesting topic regardless.

[Bob Gaines]

Hey Vern,
It seems it may be more common than not for a 67 Shelby to not have the reinforced shock mounts. I wonder what the ratio really is for cars that left the plant with the reinforced caps vs. the cars that didn't receive them.  I noticed the root beer colored Weberized 67 500 you had/have did not have the reinforced caps either.  Interesting topic regardless.

I think you are jumping to conclusions without adequate facts if you think that more 67 Shelby's then not were missing the specific for export package reinforced beehives/upper shock brackets. I have seen and judged hundreds of restored and unrestored 67 Shelby's for instance and from my point of view is ones that are missing the reinforcement seem to be the exception rather then the rule.  They were meant and specified to be used on all 65-70 Shelby's if you are not aware. Given that they were meant to be used on all years 65-70 Shelby which is backed up by their typically overwhelming presence on 65-70 Shelby's any missing ones would have to be considered a curious anomaly rather then a factory engineering specification. If not a mistake or a lack of inventory issue during different production times in 67 I would like to hear your explanation of what missing ones represent. FYI the car that Vern has on auction now is a true time capsule IMO. That car demonstrates a time when the reinforcement were left off the beehives by mistake or lack of made up inventory .  The rootbeer colored car with the 427 and Webers that Vern sold is not near as original as the auction car in many aspects (duh) and consequently is not near as credible of a untouched useful yard stick for measuring originality . 

[George Schalk]

Hey Vern,
It seems it may be more common than not for a 67 Shelby to not have the reinforced shock mounts. I wonder what the ratio really is for cars that left the plant with the reinforced caps vs. the cars that didn't receive them.  I noticed the root beer colored Weberized 67 500 you had/have did not have the reinforced caps either.  Interesting topic regardless.

I think you are jumping to conclusions without adequate facts if you think that more 67 Shelby's then not were missing the specific for export package reinforced beehives/upper shock brackets. I have seen and judged hundreds of restored and unrestored 67 Shelby's for instance and from my point of view is ones that are missing the reinforcement seem to be the exception rather then the rule.  They were meant and specified to be used on all 65-70 Shelby's if you are not aware. Given that they were meant to be used on all years 65-70 Shelby which is backed up by their typically overwhelming presence on 65-70 Shelby's any missing ones would have to be considered a curious anomaly rather then a factory engineering specification. If not a mistake or a lack of inventory issue during different production times in 67 I would like to hear your explanation of what missing ones represent. FYI the car that Vern has on auction now is a true time capsule IMO. That car demonstrates a time when the reinforcement were left off the beehives by mistake or lack of made up inventory .  The rootbeer colored car with the 427 and Webers that Vern sold is not near as original as the auction car in many aspects (duh) and consequently is not near as credible of a untouched useful yard stick for measuring originality .

Oh, behold...the KING has chimed in!!  I certainly do know that 65-70 Shelby's were "meant" to all have the reinforced shock mounts, but the subject is specifically about 1967 cars...not 1965, not 1966, not 1968, not 1969, and certainly not 1970.  It is factual and proven that not all 1967 Shelby's received the reinforced mounts or beehives.  It's almost like you are trying to prove all 67's had the reinforced beehives and shut the subject down, but reality is, they all didn't have them.  I'd truly like to know how many cars in '67 had them or didn't have them.  I never once said all '67 Shelby's were produced without the reinforced mounts.  I do not have all the proof or facts and it is very clear you do not either by your statements above.  And as for the root beer colored car with the Webers, I am aware it's a modified car (in your words "duh"), but I doubt someone would modify the car to the extent it was and then decide to replace a superior part with an inferior part like the std. upper front shock mounts or "beehives".  The fact of the matter is, you don't know and I don't know how many 67's came out of the factory with the anomaly of not having the reinforced beehives.

One more thing Bob, quit with the condescending tones and comments on this forum...it gets a little old.  There are a lot of Shelby enthusiasts that are here to learn and give input and are not looking to get insulted and humiliated by someone like you.  Do a little self-reflection and chill out dude!!

[Bob Gaines]

Hey Vern,
It seems it may be more common than not for a 67 Shelby to not have the reinforced shock mounts. I wonder what the ratio really is for cars that left the plant with the reinforced caps vs. the cars that didn't receive them.  I noticed the root beer colored Weberized 67 500 you had/have did not have the reinforced caps either.  Interesting topic regardless.

I think you are jumping to conclusions without adequate facts if you think that more 67 Shelby's then not were missing the specific for export package reinforced beehives/upper shock brackets. I have seen and judged hundreds of restored and unrestored 67 Shelby's for instance and from my point of view is ones that are missing the reinforcement seem to be the exception rather then the rule.  They were meant and specified to be used on all 65-70 Shelby's if you are not aware. Given that they were meant to be used on all years 65-70 Shelby which is backed up by their typically overwhelming presence on 65-70 Shelby's any missing ones would have to be considered a curious anomaly rather then a factory engineering specification. If not a mistake or a lack of inventory issue during different production times in 67 I would like to hear your explanation of what missing ones represent. FYI the car that Vern has on auction now is a true time capsule IMO. That car demonstrates a time when the reinforcement were left off the beehives by mistake or lack of made up inventory .  The rootbeer colored car with the 427 and Webers that Vern sold is not near as original as the auction car in many aspects (duh) and consequently is not near as credible of a untouched useful yard stick for measuring originality .

Oh, behold...the KING has chimed in!!  I certainly do know that 65-70 Shelby's were "meant" to all have the reinforced shock mounts, but the subject is specifically about 1967 cars...not 1965, not 1966, not 1968, not 1969, and certainly not 1970.  It is factual and proven that not all 1967 Shelby's received the reinforced mounts or beehives.  It's almost like you are trying to prove all 67's had the reinforced beehives and shut the subject down, but reality is, they all didn't have them.  I'd truly like to know how many cars in '67 had them or didn't have them.  I never once said all '67 Shelby's were produced without the reinforced mounts.  I do not have all the proof or facts and it is very clear you do not either by your statements above.  And as for the root beer colored car with the Webers, I am aware it's a modified car (in your words "duh"), but I doubt someone would modify the car to the extent it was and then decide to replace a superior part with an inferior part like the std. upper front shock mounts or "beehives".  The fact of the matter is, you don't know and I don't know how many 67's came out of the factory with the anomaly of not having the reinforced beehives.

One more thing Bob, quit with the condescending tones and comments on this forum...it gets a little old.  There are a lot of Shelby enthusiasts that are here to learn and give input and are not looking to get insulted and humiliated by someone like you.  Do a little self reflection and chill out dude!!

George ,insults are the last resort of INSECURE people with a CRUMBLING position trying to APPEAR confident.

[shelbydoug]

Do those show up on the add/delete sheets?

That car is not quite a perfect original car. It easily could have been built with the reinforced parts and changed out later, maybe when the non-original Koni's were installed, the water pump, fuel pump and accessory belts were changed out?

Here, what's the point of injecting more unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? There is no need to appease certain groups to avoid hate mail or violent mobs.

If you believe that if we all clap together we can save Tinkerbell, that doesn't warrant an investigation to keep you for getting violent. The answer to that for me is very obvious. Of course we can.

The cars were spec'ed with the reinforced parts. If you're missing them but want them, install them. If you don't care, good, neither do we.

[George Schalk]

Lol...no INSECURITIES here and I am very confident, Bob!  You are the one that keeps attacking.  I only speak the truth about your demeanor on this forum and I'm not the only one who feels this way.  When it comes to insults you're very good at dishing them out.  Again, do a little self-reflecting...it may help you.

[Vernon Estes]

That car is not quite a perfect original car. It easily could have been built with the reinforced parts and changed out later, maybe when the non-original Koni's were installed, the water pump, fuel pump and accessory belts were changed out?

Worth noting, no car is perfect, even those which appear "perfect" today.

It wouldn't have been difficult to put all those items back to appearing as they did "day 1"...but id rather present the car honestly as a well maintained, often enjoyed, and extremely well preserved car under the ownership of one guy for 51 years. To each his own..I see why some might want to go back to making the car look like its never been touched...wouldn't make much sense, though, considering it has 120k miles.....that would be a lottttttttt of deferred maintenance 

Kind regards,
Vern

[Vernon Estes]

Bob and George,

I think you guys are actually pretty much in agreement on the issue at hand...all the cars were "meant" to get the reinforcements...some definitely didn't...nobody knows why. That seems to be the extent of what we can say about it, right?

My observations from cars I've owned as a "dealer" who actually pays attention to that sort of stuff....it seems like if a 67 is missing its washers, it has always been a late production car. Not saying that is some sort of "rule"...just saying as indicated from the limited pool of cars which I have owned which includes 3 original paint late cars including the subject car of this thread. And Ill further say that I haven't owned many "mid" production cars. I've owned my share of early cars and my share of late cars but ive just not owned many in the middle.

66s seem to be sort of the same story, most "missing" on cars where they are fairly "untouched" seem to be late cars, some mid to late production cars?

Either way, if I was a betting man, I'd bet it was a factory "mistake"/supplier issue but who knows. Would be cool to learn why at some point.

Kind regards,
Vern

[csheff]

My junction block looks the same as this one. So they weren't all the gray ones with fins.

[Vernon Estes]

My junction block looks the same as this one. So they weren't all the gray ones with fins.

Worth noting though that this is a late car whereas the grey junction block was an early thing. I believe till around #800..so it depends on what number your car is.

Kind regards,
Vern

[Bob Gaines]

My junction block looks the same as this one. So they weren't all the gray ones with fins.

Worth noting though that this is a late car whereas the grey junction block was an early thing. I believe till around #800..so it depends on what number your car is.

Kind regards,
Vern

The grey junction blocks were very limited in use and ceased being used more likely around 200-300 vin. The grey junction block was a out sourced Industrial part. The black junction block was better and safer for use in the 67 Shelby plus was a Ford part already in the system.The auction car junction block was used for at least 95% of production .