1967 Shelby - fiberglass nose - 2 pieces?

[Richstang]

Also, odd that the right (passenger side) inboard grille light mounting plate has two holes for the wiring and connector (maybe I can sell him 5 instead of the typical 4?).

486 has the 2 piece and it also has the extra hole in the mounting plate, which I always thought was a repo.. or maybe it is

67gt500,
Thanks for letting us know #0486 also has a 2 pc nose.
How does your 2 pc nose compare to the photos posted so far?

[Richstang]

Just added #0376 to the list in the first post. So far only GT500's are noted with the 2 pc nose.

This is the earliest car so far SJ 12/30/66  - SA 1/26/67.

[owenkelley]

Strange that they are all GT500's so far.....

[s_eagle]

0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350.  Been off the road for many years but almost finished.

[Richstang]

0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350.  Been off the road for many years but almost finished.

s_eagle,
Thanks for telling us the GT350 #0515 has a 2 piece nose. (PM to follow)

I couldn't believe the 2 pc nose was limited to only GT500's. There's no reason other than if it was at a point in production when they were trying to get more GT500's out the door. I suspect there are a whole lot more cars out there with the 2 piece nose.

[Bob Gaines]

0515 is a 2 piece nose GT-350.  Been off the road for many years but almost finished.

s_eagle,
Thanks for telling us the GT350 #0515 has a 2 piece nose. (PM to follow)

I couldn't believe the 2 pc nose was limited to only GT500's. There's no reason other than if it was at a point in production when they were trying to get more GT500's out the door. I suspect there are a whole lot more cars out there with the 2 piece nose.

I agree a lot more cars then you have listed but not many relative to the rest of production. 

[Richstang]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.   

[BGlover67]

Wait, wouldn't SA have continued with the 2 piece versions, or are we saying that was just a stop cock measure?  Wouldn't it have been fixed when they modified the nose molds?  That certainly didn't fix the fitment issues.  Case in point, every 67 Shelby I saw with their hoods open at SAAC 42 had a bent passenger's side hood pin bracket.  Wouldn't that have been 'fixed' when the nose molds was tweaked, or is that a completely separate issue?

[Richstang]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.

I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).

"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).

Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."

[2112]

If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.

[Richstang]

Wait, wouldn't SA have continued with the 2 piece versions, or are we saying that was just a stop cock measure?  Wouldn't it have been fixed when they modified the nose molds?  That certainly didn't fix the fitment issues.  Case in point, every 67 Shelby I saw with their hoods open at SAAC 42 had a bent passenger's side hood pin bracket.  Wouldn't that have been 'fixed' when the nose molds was tweaked, or is that a completely separate issue?

We are talking about a working theory. I think Bob said it nicely when he mentioned the 2 piece nose was not a nice as the one piece nose. That might have been the SA viewpoint as well, especially considering the short term use of the 2 piece nose. One of the reasons I like Brian Styles working theory is not only from his point in the VanAiken letter, but also because we know the 68 Shelby production nose made by AO Smith was done in several pieces. Yes, the hood pin bracket might be a separate issue.

[Richstang]

If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.

I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?

[2112]

If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.

I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?

Shut lines not matching (not even close) the fender shut lines and the leading edges not matching the hood. Those two don't bug me nearly as much as the passenger side lazy eye tho.

[Richstang]

If they did create a new mold, I am surprised they didn't address all the other glaring flaws in the initial mold, top of my list would be the drooping passenger side headlight bucket.

I'm not sure that is glaring, but I'm only saying that since I hadn't noticed it. I'm looking at several straight on front views as I write this and I still don't see what your talking about. What other flaws did you notice?

Shut lines not matching (not even close) the fender shut lines and the leading edges not matching the hood. Those two don't bug me nearly as much as the passenger side lazy eye tho.

Thanks for your list. I'll be looking for that lazy eye from now on.