How significant are the 1969/70 Shelbys and who really ended their production

[PrettyMuchAShelbyGuy]

Not be rude, but would a 1970 be considered a 1969 "carryover"?  Never heard it refered to that way.

Excellent observation...51 years & the thought never occurred to me.... That's Mensa-level stuff you got there...

[roddster]

  Significant as in 5 years the Shelby went from being a damn near race car to a really nice touring car.  I like that.  If I had room in my garage I would have one.

[98SVT - was 06GT]

BTW the69  Mach1 was cheaper but where do you find it was lighter? Is fiberglass heavier than steel?
* Depends on how thick it is. Production weight fiberglass is generally just as heavy as steel. But it's easier to get complex shapes.
What was the modification of a 289 HiPo in 1967?
* Same intake as 66
Did regular Mustangs get the Holley carb, Al intake in the J code cars?
* Why would they? They weren't selling performance with that car/engine.
GT500s had 428s in 68 well before the CJ came out?
* Which is why I said mid year
69s you couldn't get an AL intake or valve covers on the regular Mustang.
* Again not necessary for the market the "regular" Mustang was targeted for. Not sure I'd call a 470cfm Autolite carb on a 351 "performance" even with an AL intake.
Real performance cars the boss 302 or Boss 429?I think a drag pack GT500 would run circles around a Boss 302 performance wise.
* I would hope so - an extra 126" and all that torque should help. But let's put both those same cars on a twisty road and see which one understeers into the nearest ditch.
How many drag racers pulled the B9 out and put an FE into their cars to go drag racing? Same FE that was in the GT500s in some cases. 
* Everyone who scattered their B9 and realized they could downgrade the engine for much less money. The B9 was never designed to be a drag engine.
I think you need to "revise" your post.
Still think I'm wrong? Did you go to the site in my first post? Check out their discussion on the Z serial numbers and their documents

I guess I could revise the Mach1 and Shelby and list them as Luxury Mustangs - using Ford's own ad pitch of the time.
PS when I was writing stuff for Mustang Illustrated in the late 80s I always recommended buying the Mustang LX instead of the GT they were exactly the same engine and chassis wise but the LX was over 100 pounds lighter.

[69mach351w]

Mr Gaines  thank you for the response

So to be clear Kar Kraft was involved with the left over 1969 conversion to 1970s :

Adding stripes on hood
Front spoiler
Possible emmision updates to 70 standards
Stickers to reflect the above
Door V. I. N. sticker on doors with the Fed's supervision


So then actually three companies where truly involed in the 1969 program, Ford,  Shelby and A. O. Smith.

I thought I was CLEAR ENOUGH? Larry's photos from KK in spring of 70. BTW Front spoiler done by dealers. I have pics of Larry actually painting the hood stripes at KK. Just not here at work. I also have paperwork thanks to Mongo of my car leaving KK to Wixom holding facility to be shipped by rail to the east coast for export.

Larry Lawrence KK painter.

Dang cool vintage photo. How did they keep the overspray off the uncovered sheetmetal? Especially the top?

[Bill]

How did they keep the overspray off the uncovered sheetmetal? Especially the top?

Down draft style booth/open shooting area coupled with a (for the day) low volume, low pressure paint gun. Not a lot of overspray potential compared to todays, modern HVLP paint equipment (Sata 4000 digital being my personal choice)


Bill

[shelbymann1970]

BTW the69  Mach1 was cheaper but where do you find it was lighter? Is fiberglass heavier than steel?
* Depends on how thick it is. Production weight fiberglass is generally just as heavy as steel. But it's easier to get complex shapes.
What was the modification of a 289 HiPo in 1967?
* Same intake as 66
Did regular Mustangs get the Holley carb, Al intake in the J code cars?
* Why would they? They weren't selling performance with that car/engine.
GT500s had 428s in 68 well before the CJ came out?
* Which is why I said mid year
69s you couldn't get an AL intake or valve covers on the regular Mustang.
* Again not necessary for the market the "regular" Mustang was targeted for. Not sure I'd call a 470cfm Autolite carb on a 351 "performance" even with an AL intake.
Real performance cars the boss 302 or Boss 429?I think a drag pack GT500 would run circles around a Boss 302 performance wise.
* I would hope so - an extra 126" and all that torque should help. But let's put both those same cars on a twisty road and see which one understeers into the nearest ditch.
How many drag racers pulled the B9 out and put an FE into their cars to go drag racing? Same FE that was in the GT500s in some cases. 
* Everyone who scattered their B9 and realized they could downgrade the engine for much less money. The B9 was never designed to be a drag engine.
I think you need to "revise" your post.
Still think I'm wrong? Did you go to the site in my first post? Check out their discussion on the Z serial numbers and their documents

I guess I could revise the Mach1 and Shelby and list them as Luxury Mustangs - using Ford's own ad pitch of the time.
PS when I was writing stuff for Mustang Illustrated in the late 80s I always recommended buying the Mustang LX instead of the GT they were exactly the same engine and chassis wise but the LX was over 100 pounds lighter.

My friends 69 Boss 429 was street raced in California with an FE in it. OO pulled out the B9 and installed a FE(my friends conversation with him). The B9 engine was then reinstalled back in the Boss when it's racing days were over(one of the nicest survivor B9s out there). Just one example but still what some did back in the day. My point which you missed with your comments back was the engines were the SAME in reg Mustangs and Shelbys. No they were not(I guess you don't consider adding an AL intake as a performance gain?). Was a 67 HiPo changed internally for the Shelby(Not sure but asking?). Yeah the POS autolite carb on 69s sucked and a Holley 600 from a 66 Fairlane works great. I'm sure emissions had a lot to do after the 68 problems on why carbs were not Holleys in 69. I'll tell you right now that I can lift a hood off of my 70 GT350 by myself. I sure as heck cannot lift the hood off of my 69 SCJ Mach1. I know by handling that  the fenders are lighter too so take that as you may. I agree a Mach1 is a "luxury" Mustang that is why many ordered a sportsroof when drag racing. All I know is whether people think a 68-70 Shelbys are considered "real Shelbys" or not they are kickass looking cars and why I own them. Ditto for my "heavier" Mach1. There isn't a 65-68 Mustang I'd rather own over my Mach1. Opinions(tastes) are like A-holes. We all have them and if we didn't it would be a boring world.

[shelbymann1970]

BTW the69  Mach1 was cheaper but where do you find it was lighter? Is fiberglass heavier than steel?
* Depends on how thick it is. Production weight fiberglass is generally just as heavy as steel. But it's easier to get complex shapes.
What was the modification of a 289 HiPo in 1967?
* Same intake as 66
Did regular Mustangs get the Holley carb, Al intake in the J code cars?
* Why would they? They weren't selling performance with that car/engine.
GT500s had 428s in 68 well before the CJ came out?
* Which is why I said mid year
69s you couldn't get an AL intake or valve covers on the regular Mustang.
* Again not necessary for the market the "regular" Mustang was targeted for. Not sure I'd call a 470cfm Autolite carb on a 351 "performance" even with an AL intake.
Real performance cars the boss 302 or Boss 429?I think a drag pack GT500 would run circles around a Boss 302 performance wise.
* I would hope so - an extra 126" and all that torque should help. But let's put both those same cars on a twisty road and see which one understeers into the nearest ditch.
How many drag racers pulled the B9 out and put an FE into their cars to go drag racing? Same FE that was in the GT500s in some cases. 
* Everyone who scattered their B9 and realized they could downgrade the engine for much less money. The B9 was never designed to be a drag engine.
I think you need to "revise" your post.
Still think I'm wrong? Did you go to the site in my first post? Check out their discussion on the Z serial numbers and their documents

My question was the timeline Ford took over production. You said"Mid 67 - Ford assumes all assets and trademarks of SA over unpaid 1962 startup loan - CS becomes race team contractor only.
67s with Z on serial number plate were done under Ford ownership - All dealers could now order Shelby's ($100 fee added if not a Shelby dealer) so I went back to Brian's site and pulled this out: Oct. 01: The first production '67 G.T. 350 Fastback is completed by Shelby American and assigned s/n 0176.
Unfortunately, fiberglass fitment, supply issues, and financial problems plague the '67 operation from the start.  Due to these "launch problems" Ford Motor Company steps in and takes control.  SAI's district code is changed from 71 to 84. Dr. Ray A. Geddes takes over purchasing (and possibly operations as a whole).Oct. 27 - Nov. 06: G.T. 350 Fastback (#0018) is shown at the 44th annual Southern California International Automobile Show held at the Pan Pacific Auditorium in Los Angeles California. So is this midyear? Am I missing something or reading the timeline wrong here? Is the taking control out of order in this timeline sequence. It has been years since I visited Brian and saw his 67 at his mancave but coming away from our discussions I thought Ford essentially built the 67s and why there was only 1 coupe and Vert built(little red wasn't discovered yet) in stead of 6 models Shelby was planning. Funny also you want to compare road racing performance and not drag racing performance in comparing the B2 to the CJ. I'm sure the GT500 in 1967 wasn't designed for winding roads but is still a "real" Shelby.

[FL SAAC]

Now we are getting somewhere, this is when things starts to become unplugged


What truly caused  the demise of the Shelby program ?

Ford
Shelby
A. O. Smith
FL SAAC ?
Internal developments (Ford new Mustangs)
Why are we paying royalties and advisory fees
Insurance
Male menopause
Consumers
Market changes
Oil
Other

My question was the timeline Ford took over production. You said"Mid 67 - Ford assumes all assets and trademarks of SA over unpaid 1962 startup loan - CS becomes race team contractor only.
67s with Z on serial number plate were done under Ford ownership - All dealers could now order Shelby's ($100 fee added if not a Shelby dealer) so I went back to Brian's site and pulled this out: Oct. 01: The first production '67 G.T. 350 Fastback is completed by Shelby American and assigned s/n 0176.
Unfortunately, fiberglass fitment, supply issues, and financial problems plague the '67 operation from the start.  Due to these "launch problems" Ford Motor Company steps in and takes control.  SAI's district code is changed from 71 to 84. Dr. Ray A. Geddes takes over purchasing (and possibly operations as a whole).Oct. 27 - Nov. 06: G.T. 350 Fastback (#0018) is shown at the 44th annual Southern California International Automobile Show held at the Pan Pacific Auditorium in Los Angeles California. So is this midyear? Am I missing something or reading the timeline wrong here? Is the taking control out of order in this timeline sequence. It has been years since I visited Brian and saw his 67 at his mancave but coming away from our discussions I thought Ford essentially built the 67s and why there was only 1 coupe and Vert built(little red wasn't discovered yet) in stead of 6 models Shelby was planning. Funny also you want to compare road racing performance and not drag racing performance in comparing the B2 to the CJ. I'm sure the GT500 in 1967 wasn't designed for winding roads but is still a "real" Shelby.

[shelbymann1970]

Now we are getting somewhere, this is when things starts to become unplugged


What truly caused  the demise of the Shelby program ?
Mopars and Chevies. nobody wanted anything to do with Ford products anynmore. 

[98SVT - was 06GT]

My point which you missed with your comments back was the engines were the SAME in reg Mustangs and Shelbys. No they were not(I guess you don't consider adding an AL intake as a performance gain?). Was a 67 HiPo changed internally for the Shelby(Not sure but asking?).

Same engine internally with an intake/carb swap - No the 67 HiPo was not changed internally - neither was the 65-66. The 31 hp gain came from external intake/carb/exhaust changes.

Due to these "launch problems" Ford Motor Company steps in and takes control. .......Oct. 27 - Nov. 06: ......So is this midyear?
Funny also you want to compare road racing performance and not drag racing performance in comparing the B2 to the CJ. I'm sure the GT500 in 1967 wasn't designed for winding roads but is still a "real" Shelby.

There is a difference between Ford managing the production of cars and them basically foreclosing on SA in April/May 67 (which is actually near the end of model year production - remember new cars came out in Sept and June was generally a shutdown month for assembly line changeover)
Funny you want to compare drag racing performance between a big block and small block and then expect me to judge between cars in an apples to oranges race.

[FL SAAC]

Great point market changes and consumers swaying over to a more hip cars with psychedelic advertising,  groovy colors and options. More competitively priced offering more bang for your buck.

Heck looks like it's the 60s all over again, cause it's happening now ( C8 )

Back to the topic " what happened in the three way relationship? "

Infidelity....

Now we are getting somewhere, this is when things starts to become unplugged


What truly caused  the demise of the Shelby program ?
Mopars and Chevies. nobody wanted anything to do with Ford products anynmore. 

[Greg]

Answer.... All good things must come to an end!

[FL SAAC]

IMO, Ford wanting (taking) control from Shelby American.  Carroll getting pissed, telling Ford to get lost & going an entirely different direction (Africa, Reno - motel & dealership, etc.). May not be 100% accurate, but generally from the dozen or so books I have read over the years...

Sorry I missed your post, as you raise good questions:

Ford wanting (taking) control from Shelby American. 

Why for non performance on S.A. part ?

Carroll getting pissed, telling Ford to get lost & going an entirely different direction (Africa, Reno - motel & dealership, etc.).

Or Ford again not happy with compliance or production results. One has to acknowledge making 500 widgets the first year was a challenge.  Come year two and three, are you ramped up to handle an additional demand on widgets ?

I don't think CS and crew had the ability, man power, resources to continue their product growth.  Sometimes  your worst enemy is your very own success


May not be 100% accurate, but generally from the dozen or so books I have read over the years...

Alrighty

[98SVT - was 06GT]

A couple other deal killers we haven't gone into deeply yet were the EPA and insurance costs. Early emissions requirements were tough for manufacturers to meet. Look at the low HP from the 70s all the way into the 90s. Insurance costs were always based on risk vs cost. Performance cars cost more to insure. A 69 GT500 cost more to insure due to initial price than a 69 Coupe with the same drivetrain. A buyer just looking for performance would get the cheaper to buy/insure Coupe or Sportroof. In 1969 I bought a new 1970 Road Runner. I opted for the 3 speed stick because to insure me as a 19 year old with a 4 speed was 3 times the price.
CS always had the public story he killed it himself due to the emissions requirements. Long before that Ford had already decided to pull the plug. The Duece had made his point to Enzo in 66-67. The Shelby's were not race cars getting free ink and drawing customers to the showroom floor. The races getting all the ink was TransAm and Ford/Chevy had decided to pull their dollars out of that so there was no need to renew CSs race team or personal services contract. I heard a price tag of $25 million is what Ford spent on racing from the start of the GT40 program until LeMans in 67. Yeah HFII ran the place but he had a board of directors to justify that kind of money to and spending $3-4 dollars profit from each car would no longer fly on the balance sheet. CS also hadn't had many race wins since the 67 TA championship. TA crowds were down and NASCAR was still drawing 5-10 times the number of people to a race than TA ever did.

[PrettyMuchAShelbyGuy]

Excellent analysis-

A couple other deal killers we haven't gone into deeply yet were the EPA and insurance costs. Early emissions requirements were tough for manufacturers to meet. Look at the low HP from the 70s all the way into the 90s. Insurance costs were always based on risk vs cost. Performance cars cost more to insure. A 69 GT500 cost more to insure due to initial price than a 69 Coupe with the same drivetrain. A buyer just looking for performance would get the cheaper to buy/insure Coupe or Sportroof. In 1969 I bought a new Road Runner. I opted for the 3 speed stick because to insure me as a 19 year old with a 4 speed was 3 times the price.
CS always had the public story he killed it himself due to the emissions requirements. Long before that Ford had already decided to pull the plug. The Duece had made his point to Enzo in 66-67. The Shelby's were not race cars getting free ink and drawing customers to the showroom floor. The races getting all the ink was TransAm and Ford/Chevy had decided to pull their dollars out of that so there was no need to renew CSs race team or personal services contract. I heard a price tag of $25 million is what Ford spent on racing from the start of the GT40 program until LeMans in 67. Yeah HFII ran the place but he had a board of directors to justify that kind of money to and spending $3-4 dollars profit from each car would no longer fly on the balance sheet. CS also hadn't had many race wins since the 67 TA championship. TA crowds were down and NASCAR was still drawing 5-10 times the number of people to a race than TA ever did.