67 smog

[waltweems]

I have owned my 67 GT500 for many years.  It was built 1/10/67 in San Jose and should have a smog system but does
not.  I'm not sure if it is likely that I could find the parts to assembly one.  i would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks.

Walt Weems

[alexgt350h]

Smog was the hardest part to complete for my 67.
You can find parts, just takes time and $.
I have extra smog oil fill tube (reproduction).

[shelbymann1970]

I have owned my 67 GT500 for many years.  It was built 1/10/67 in San Jose and should have a smog system but does
not.  I'm not sure if it is likely that I could find the parts to assembly one.  i would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks.

Walt Weems

Many years ago-over 30- I sold a 67 390 smog setup to a 67 GT500 owner in Az who had a Calif emissions car. My 67 came from Calif and had passed emissions before the owner moved back to Mi with the car. The Shelby owner told me most parts would cross right over except possibly you need to modify a part or 2  IIRC? So start by looking for a 390 car. Gary

[Bob Gaines]

I have owned my 67 GT500 for many years.  It was built 1/10/67 in San Jose and should have a smog system but does
not.  I'm not sure if it is likely that I could find the parts to assembly one.  i would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks.

Walt Weems

Many parts are the same as a 390 which helps. The alternator adjusting arm for the GT500 with smog is probably the hardest part to find . It has a extra bend that the 390 version doesn't have because of the larger diameter 427 style balancer used on the 67 GT500. The repros for example that I have seen are based on a CJ alt adjusting arm for example that has a similar bend.
There is no engineering number stamped on the GT500 adjusting arm part which makes it that much harder. The correct looking filter cannister is used on the 390 system but is still a hard part to find and is the same as the 67 hipo with smog . The smog tubes look very much like the CJ versions but have different bends and are one year only. Add to that not all 390 smog cars came with the tall tube for the driver side and instead had a short one. You also have a alternative to make the system none functional . It is less expensive for the smog pump to be free wheeling and not rebuilt inside which 95% plus need.  You can make it look the part but not rob HP and contribute to a overheating GT500.   A complete working system should cost  2k 3K just like a comparable CJ system does. The number as a reference point given how hard it is to find the rare parts. If you can find them for less this may help with the decision to buy or not.  I have had a few sets over the years and they were very difficult for me to sell so I don't go out of my way to tie up money and time accumulating parts for them anymore. I suspect other sellers have found the same thing . The 67 GT500 system is so obscure that knowing what you need and how to identify it is the challenge. It takes research and perseverance . There is much more to this subject and my post is meant to cover some brief highlights. 

[1968]

I appreciate that the philosophy of councours standards is to have the car restored to the original condition of the car as it came from the factory.  California emissions presents an interesting philosophical question, however.  It is my understanding that the Thermactor smog setup from the mid-to-late 1960's was later determined to actually increase rather than decrease NOx emissions.  As a result, when California vehicle inspections occurred a few years later, the Thermactor smog setup was to be removed and the holes in the heads plugged.  This seems like a smog "recall" of sorts.  And didn't Ford provide specific plugs for the Thermactor holes in the smog heads for this purpose?  If so, it seems that a car with the Thermactor setup removed, and the holes plugged, could still be considered "correct" in some sense.  Would other recall modifications for safety, etc. still be "correct" for councours?  If so, then why not the removal of the smog setup?

[JD]

briefly reply to your post above - the time period used for concours judging at SAAC is "as the car was delivered to the first owner".

So in this case with the thermactor system in place.

[1968]

briefly reply to your post above - the time period used for concours judging at SAAC is "as the car was delivered to the first owner".

So in this case with the thermactor system in place.

Got it.  Thanks.  I understand the philosophy, but I question it.  For 1968 cars for example, I know that there was a recall of the folding front seat latches.  I would rather have the replacement latch than the original "concours correct" defective latch, for safety reasons.  I think the same argument could be made for Thermactor smog, especially if you are at all concerned about increased emissions.  Of course, you could just gut the pump, as described above, but the actual "recall" was for removal and plugging.  Absolute rules/standards that ignore subsequent reality sometimes lead to absurd results, such as mandating the use of a counterproductive, defective setup that reduces horsepower and causes increased air pollution.

[Tired Sheep]

Would love to see the "recall" for removing federally mandated smog equipment. Do you have a copy?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

[1968]

Would love to see the "recall" for removing federally mandated smog equipment. Do you have a copy?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

I think that you are making a couple of incorrect assumptions.  First, it was not a "recall," which is why I put "recall" in quotes.  Second, emissions equipment was not "federally mandated" for cars manufactured before January 1, 1968.  This can be confirmed from existing law in the form of the federal regulations regarding importation of motor vehicles:

"19 CFR § 12.73 - Importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.

(e) Exemptions and exclusions from emission requirements based on age of vehicle. The following motor vehicles may be imported by any person and do not have to be shown to be in compliance with emission requirements before they are entitled to admissibility:

(1) Gasoline-fueled light-duty trucks and light-duty motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968;"

For cars made prior to January 1, 1968, what the Thermactor setup was addressing was a California emissions program.  Also, California vehicles from model year 1975 and older were later made exempt from the smog requirements.  This has, in part, been attributed to the counterproductive nature of the older smog setups.

There are references if you perform a Google search.  Here is one specific to 1966 Mustangs with California emissions:

https://www.vintage-mustang.com/threads/taking-off-thermactor-system.539287/

"I deleted my Thermactor system when I rebuilt the engine and restored the car.  The system actually increased NOX emissions and there was a NOX retrofit program here in CA several years later that attempted to address the problem.  Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the manifold.  If you install the Ford plugs, you simply need to remove the components.  The smog pump acted as the belt tightening device for one of the belts IIRC.  When you remove it you will need a different belt."

By the way, the oft quoted knee-jerk statement:  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" makes no sense in this context.  A quick Google search will show that none of this is reasonably in dispute.  The only justification for the Thermactor smog setup is the concours standard that requires the car to appear as it was when originally sold.

[1968]

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

[Tired Sheep]

The incorrect assumptions are yours.

Specific engines were federally certified before 1968 production started and did not change for Shelbys during the course of the model year. The only exception was the GT350 (non smog) intakes which were certified in the spring of 1968. The vast majority of all 68 Shelbys were built after January 1, those that were built prior still had the smog controls, regardless of final shipping destinations. (California and Canada were all the same as every other location)

This is a documented fact. Factory build sheets show the same engine configurations during the entire production run from September 1967 to July 1968.

Maybe not federally mandated, but Ford adopted to the coming changes so they did have to change during production.

Unfortunately, your internet research does not match the reality of production. The only 1968 Shelbys built w/o smog were GT350 automatics.

What someone did after the fact is irrelevant to the historical correctness of how the cars were manufactured.

[1968]

The incorrect assumptions are yours.

Specific engines were federally certified before 1968 production started and did not change for Shelbys during the course of the model year. The vast majority of all 68 Shelbys were built after January 1, those that were built prior still had the smog controls.

This is a documented fact. Factory build sheets show the same engine configurations during the entire production run from September 1967 to July 1968.

Maybe not federally mandated, but Ford adopted to the coming changes so they did have to change during production.

Unfortunately, your internet research does not match the reality of production. The only 1968 Shelbys built w/o smog were GT350 automatics.

What someone did after the fact is irrelevant to the historical correctness of the cars.

Nope.  You are missing the point.  You questioned how California could require the removal of federally required smog equipment.  Whether the car was a 1967 or 1968 model does not matter, as long as it was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  I have personal family experience with a 1968 Mustang in Southern California that, while it was still required to be smog inspected in connection with the annual registration renewal, was required to be smog retrofitted.  The Thermactor air holes were plugged and the remaining equipment was removed prior to smog inspection approval.  The car had a manufacture date of November 1967.  Was the car no longer "original"?  Under concours standards, yes, but it was "legal" in California after the retrofit.

[Bob Gaines]

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

The line in the sand has been as delivered to the first customer from the dealer which by the way allows for non factory variations as long as there is reasonable proof that it was done by the dealer prior to delivery.  There are many examples of the evolution of parts that happened after the cars were sold new. The hinge is one ,thermactor may be another .There are many more. That is why just because a part is NOS for a particular application doesn't mean it is assemblyline correct. The evolution of replacement parts was sometimes to make it better other times it was to make it cheaper or to fit more applications for less Ford replacement parts inventory. Where do you draw the line for what  "should " be reflected in the standard for "originality"?  A week? A month? A year? A decade? The original post was about a 1967 application and you are making it about a 68 application . Regardless of the year of interest the same requirements have to be able to be applied across the board equally. You have not made a case for the thermactor delete being allowed in a concours venue unless this revision could be shown with reasonable (key word) proof as being done prior to the first owner taking delivery by the dealer 

[1968]

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

The line in the sand has been as delivered to the first customer from the dealer which by the way allows for non factory variations as long as there is reasonable proof that it was done by the dealer prior to delivery.  There are many examples of the evolution of parts that happened after the cars were sold new. The hinge is one ,thermactor may be another .There are many more. That is why just because a part is NOS for a particular application doesn't mean it is assemblyline correct. The evolution of replacement parts was sometimes to make it better other times it was to make it cheaper or to fit more applications for less Ford replacement parts inventory. Where do you draw the line for what  "should " be reflected in the standard for "originality"?  A week? A month? A year? A decade? The original post was about a 1967 application and you are making it about a 68 application . Regardless of the year of interest the same requirements have to be able to be applied across the board equally. You have not made a case for the thermactor delete being allowed in a concours venue unless this revision could be shown with reasonable (key word) proof as being done prior to the first owner taking delivery by the dealer

Well, I do not disagree with most of this, except that I was not making it about a 1968 application.  The January 1, 1968 date is relevant because that is the implementation date for the federal smog law.  "Tired Sheep" is the one who turned this into a 1968 model year issue, which I responded to.  My point was addressing only cars made in 1967, or earlier, because that is why we need to be discussing California requirements.  For cars manufactured up through December 31, 1967, California could require whatever they decided to with regard to smog.  As I indicated, I have personal experience with a retrofitted car in that situation.

I understand your point regarding the "slippery slope" of modifications, but when we are dealing with a legally-mandated retrofit to be able to drive the car on public roads in the State of California, it seems that should be allowed as an exception to the general definition of "original" in councours.  Perhaps that would be allowable with written documentation of the required smog retrofit.  In any event, this is just a theoretical issue for me as while I am interested in originality, I do not participate in concours events, nor do I plan to do so.

[Bob Gaines]

At the risk of belaboring the point, it seems that since there was a NOx retrofit program in California that attempted to address the problem of the vintage Thermactor system actually increasing NOx emissions, and because Ford produced a special plug for the air tube ports in the smog heads to address the problem, these facts should be reflected in the standard for "originality" of cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.  In other words, a "Thermactor delete" retrofit should be considered "appropriate," if not "original," on a California car manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.

-JW

The line in the sand has been as delivered to the first customer from the dealer which by the way allows for non factory variations as long as there is reasonable proof that it was done by the dealer prior to delivery.  There are many examples of the evolution of parts that happened after the cars were sold new. The hinge is one ,thermactor may be another .There are many more. That is why just because a part is NOS for a particular application doesn't mean it is assemblyline correct. The evolution of replacement parts was sometimes to make it better other times it was to make it cheaper or to fit more applications for less Ford replacement parts inventory. Where do you draw the line for what  "should " be reflected in the standard for "originality"?  A week? A month? A year? A decade? The original post was about a 1967 application and you are making it about a 68 application . Regardless of the year of interest the same requirements have to be able to be applied across the board equally. You have not made a case for the thermactor delete being allowed in a concours venue unless this revision could be shown with reasonable (key word) proof as being done prior to the first owner taking delivery by the dealer

Well, I do not disagree with most of this, except that I was not making it about a 1968 application.  The January 1, 1968 date is relevant because that is the implementation date for the federal smog law.  "Tired Sheep" is the one who turned this into a 1968 model year issue, which I responded to.  My point was addressing only cars made in 1967, or earlier, because that is why we need to be discussing California requirements.  For cars manufactured up through December 31, 1967, California could require whatever they decided to with regard to smog.  As I indicated, I have personal experience with a retrofitted car in that situation.

I understand your point regarding the "slippery slope" of modifications, but when we are dealing with a legally-mandated retrofit to be able to drive the car on public roads in the State of California, it seems that should be allowed as an exception to the general definition of "original" in councours.  Perhaps that would be allowable with written documentation of the required smog retrofit.  In any event, this is just a theoretical issue for me as while I am interested in originality, I do not participate in concours events, nor do I plan to do so.

The concours venues have to do with historical accuracy of the way the cars were built when new ,flaws and all. The concours venues are not meant to cover all bases. To each their own which is OK. If someone feels that is not fair or contrary to their beliefs /point of view then it only makes good sense to participate in other car events that don't require the restrictions.  The historical aspect when new is the point of the Shelby and Mustang concours venues as they are currently set up .