289 hipo head question

[cascade-classics]

I'm trying to verify a set of hipo heads.  They appear to be 67 California emission heads because they have plugs at the edge of each exhaust port.  Number on bottom is C7ZE. Have all the correct numbers, screw in studs, etc.  Both dated 6M22.  My understanding is only GT350's sold in California would have them.  Since the car I'm working on was sold to a New York dealer I have to assume they are incorrect for this car. Build date of car is May 02, 1967.    If they are incorrect I will have a pair to sell.  Comments please.

Thanks,

[J_Speegle]

I'm trying to verify a set of hipo heads.  They appear to be 67 California emission heads because they have plugs at the edge of each exhaust port.  Number on bottom is C7ZE. Have all the correct numbers, screw in studs, etc.  Both dated 6M22.  My understanding is only GT350's sold in California would have them.  Since the car I'm working on was sold to a New York dealer I have to assume they are incorrect for this car. Build date of car is May 02, 1967.    If they are incorrect I will have a pair to sell.  Comments please.

A little correction. GT350's going to Calif after mid-April would have had the requirement of the Thermactor  (for some reason the state didn't require it or notice the issue before that) Given the date your car was built in the range  but your VIN would indicate if it was originally Thermactor or non-Thermactor
car.

Given that you have provided that it originally went to NY it may not have had them but double check the fifth digit (0  1  2 or a 3) of the Shelby VIN and it will provide the information your looking for

[cascade-classics]

I'm trying to verify a set of hipo heads.  They appear to be 67 California emission heads because they have plugs at the edge of each exhaust port.  Number on bottom is C7ZE. Have all the correct numbers, screw in studs, etc.  Both dated 6M22.  My understanding is only GT350's sold in California would have them.  Since the car I'm working on was sold to a New York dealer I have to assume they are incorrect for this car. Build date of car is May 02, 1967.    If they are incorrect I will have a pair to sell.  Comments please.

A little correction. GT350's going to Calif after mid-April would have had the requirement of the Thermactor  (for some reason the state didn't require it or notice the issue before that) Given the date your car was built in the range  but your VIN would indicate if it was originally Thermactor or non-Thermactor
car.

Given that you have provided that it originally went to NY it may not have had them but double check the fifth digit (0  1  2 or a 3) of the Shelby VIN and it will provide the information your looking for

Thanks for the clarification.  Fifth digit is a 0.  The Marti Report does not mention anything about Thermactor system either.

[gt350cs]

No Smog.

[gt350cs]

By the way 6M22 indicates a 12/22/66 casting date. Maybe a little early for this application. 

[gt350cs]

I could find only one car meeting the limited criteria that you provided - is the car #2186 delivered to Frontier Ford, Niagara Falls, NY the car in question?

[gt350cs]

WOW. I just made it to Full Member - no longer "Junior"!

[gt350hr]

cascade-classics 
      A better way to describe the Thermactor emissions cars is "to be sold in California the cars had to have it" . Ford vehicles with Thermactor Emissions could be sent to other states and some were by my observations "back in the day". A Marti report should validate emissions equipment or the lack of.
    Randy

[J_Speegle]

WOW. I just made it to Full Member - no longer "Junior"!

Posting one sentence per post gets you there quicker as you've found

One word per post even faster ......... though it's a bit hard to read

[J_Speegle]

By the way 6M22 indicates a 12/22/66 casting date. Maybe a little early for this application.

Depends on allot of factors IMHO and other things. Given its reported that they are Thermactor Hipo heads and there were not applications for them from when they were made until mid April  it would appear that it would be logical that such heads possibly be used on cars built not too long before May. 

Just offering the possibilities based on what we have been presented and what the documentation shows

[gt350hr]

   Jeff ,
      It is "my opinion'' that the thermactor was delayed because of confusion over the exemption certificate enjoyed by the '66 GT350s . IIRC SAI thought it would cover the '67s as well but The State of California was out to prove a point and forced SAI to use it. They "allowed" previous cars to stay "as is" and not get retrofitted. 67 "K" code Mustangs sold in CA already had them at the begining of the year. A friend down here in So cal has a 67 K code FB with a '66 build date and smog.
   Randy

[J_Speegle]

   Jeff ,
      It is "my opinion'' that the thermactor was delayed because of confusion over the exemption certificate enjoyed by the '66 GT350s . IIRC SAI thought it would cover the '67s as well but The State of California was out to prove a point and forced SAI to use it. They "allowed" previous cars to stay "as is" and not get retrofitted. 67 "K" code Mustangs sold in CA already had them at the begining of the year. A friend down here in So cal has a 67 K code FB with a '66 build date and smog.
   Randy

The comment about Mid April start/change date was a Ford document and not a Shelby one. Haven't seen an early K code San Jose built non-Shelby with a Thermactor system Would love to see more especially head dates and such.  Wonder (I don't have any in my records) if a Marti report of a non-Shelby K code Mustang Calif delivered, would have the system mentioned in the options on a Marti report. That might be worth asking



As far as "exception" for the 66 GT350 of course the 66 Mustangs enjoyed the same exception so don't think any of this is a SAI issue but a Ford one

Need to look through the state emission stuff I have to see if there are any notes or communications related to 66 non Thermactor K code application but don't recall any

[gt350cs]

Jeff,

I didn't intend to post in that manner. The first was to answer his question. The second was follow up to the dates and the last was after checking my records based upon the information that was given. I don't know if the number that I came up with is correct or not, but that car was built San Jose on the date reported and this was the only GT350 built on that date shipped to New York that I could find.

As always, thank you for all that you add to these forums, much appreciated.

Dennis 

[J_Speegle]

Jeff,

I didn't intend to post in that manner. The first was to answer his question. .................

Dennis - don't worry - just teasing    

[69gt500]

Jeff -

Not trying to hi-jack this thread but would welcome your (and others) opinion regarding what heads and carburetor would be correct for a 4/17/67 built K Mustang?

Thanks!

   Jeff ,
      It is "my opinion'' that the thermactor was delayed because of confusion over the exemption certificate enjoyed by the '66 GT350s . IIRC SAI thought it would cover the '67s as well but The State of California was out to prove a point and forced SAI to use it. They "allowed" previous cars to stay "as is" and not get retrofitted. 67 "K" code Mustangs sold in CA already had them at the begining of the year. A friend down here in So cal has a 67 K code FB with a '66 build date and smog.
   Randy

The comment about Mid April start/change date was a Ford document and not a Shelby one. Haven't seen an early K code San Jose built non-Shelby with a Thermactor system Would love to see more especially head dates and such.  Wonder (I don't have any in my records) if a Marti report of a non-Shelby K code Mustang Calif delivered, would have the system mentioned in the options on a Marti report. That might be worth asking



As far as "exception" for the 66 GT350 of course the 66 Mustangs enjoyed the same exception so don't think any of this is a SAI issue but a Ford one

Need to look through the state emission stuff I have to see if there are any notes or communications related to 66 non Thermactor K code application but don't recall any