Original Engine vs. Non Original Engine effecting values?

[dhardiman]

I have really never entered into a discussion regarding the values of 67 Shelby GT350 having the original engine or an engine with the correct casting numbers.  It seems like most Shelby's had there engine replaced along the way. Any thoughts.  In Judging is any of the casting numbers and build date of engines even considered?  Does anyone have a comment on this subject?

[J_Speegle]

As far as judging for in a National SAAC event yes castings numbers, dates and such are included in the scoring for the top most class. Same thing goes at some of the others - just depends.

For the classes that allow good and correct reproduction parts the same details are not included but if some other feature in the casting (shape, mounting points, ....) is different then you can expect a discussion and possible deduction.

[dhardiman]

Thank you for the post, What would be acceptable casting date range for a block for a Shelby that was built March 28 1967?
Thank you for your input.

[dhardiman]

I guess I would  like to get an opinion if it would be acceptable to have an engine with a build casting
March 9 1967 and a car build date of March 28 1967?

[gt350cs]

I would think that might be a little short of the time from casting and perhaps maybe even to soon from build date.

[Bob Gaines]

I guess I would  like to get an opinion if it would be acceptable to have an engine with a build casting
March 9 1967 and a car build date of March 28 1967?

It doesn't sound like you are building the car for SAAC DIV I or MCA thoroughbred class where date codes ,VIN stamps and casting dates need to be in place . A car built to a award winning Bronze,Silver or Gold SAAC DIV II and MCA Trailer concours class are typically dramatically more correct then most car owners who aspire for assemblyline correct look.  With that said those date code aspects are not looked at only the physical appearance of the part or assembly is expected to be as assemblyline. In other words the date codes will only matter to you in those class's. Given the engine is not original anyway it would not be a candidate for those date code expected class's anyway. I would be most concerned about getting all of the EXPECTED things right . Many people make the mistake of fixating on the nuance detail things and miss the typically easier to fix much more visible things. I caution you to not be that guy.

[J_Speegle]

I guess I would  like to get an opinion if it would be acceptable to have an engine with a build casting
March 9 1967 and a car build date of March 28 1967?

It would help to know if you have a 350 or a 500 for comparison.

[1175]

I guess I would  like to get an opinion if it would be acceptable to have an engine with a build casting
March 9 1967 and a car build date of March 28 1967?

Jeff, The car is listed above as a GT 350.

On the short end of the spectrum, but I think it's entirely possible.

Jon

[J_Speegle]

Jeff, The car is listed above as a GT 350.

Sorry missed that in the original post

With that others in that production period (give or take a week or so) at San Jose have been found with casting dates for the block from Jan 67 from what I've collected

[JD]

The casting date of the block and the build date of the engine and the build date of the "car at San Jose" and the completion date at Shelby American are all different dates - 4 dates.

With regards to the first two - casting date and engine build date on a K-code 289 HiPo these occurred in Cleveland Ohio.

The completed engine was then shipped to San Jose (near San Francisco) for installation into the car that although able to be driven off the assembly line still had to be shipped to Shelby American (Los Angeles) to be completed into a saleable car - '67 GT350.  Not likely that the first 3 occurred in 19 days.  (When you refer to the car build date are you referencing the San Jose build date or the Shelby completion date?)

As suggested by Jeff S... a much longer spread in dates is typical.

...With that others in that production period (give or take a week or so) at San Jose have been found with casting dates for the block from Jan 67 from what I've collected

To your initial question...

I have really never entered into a discussion regarding the values of 67 Shelby GT350 having the original engine or an engine with the correct casting numbers. 

It seems like most Shelby's had there engine replaced along the way. Any thoughts. 

In Judging is any of the casting numbers and build date of engines even considered? 

Does anyone have a comment on this subject?

Value of a car that has it's original engine (block?) vs not having the original, but having one with the correct casting date?

Some buyers value (desire) original drivetrain and others the original sheet metal - doesn't seem to be a clear-cut issue.  Typically the more original to the car is the most valuable as you are probably well aware.  Trying to but a dollar amount to that is very difficult because then other issues/variables kick-in such as color, trans and more.

With regards to the last question in you opening post...
"...In Judging is any of the casting numbers and build date of engines even considered?  ..."
As you can see above - YES and depending on the organization and the judging class in that club the expected varies.

[oldcanuck]

Aren't some, or most 1967 GT-350s also VIN stamped on the block ?

[JD]

Aren't some, or most 1967 GT-350s also VIN stamped on the block ?

yes

[capecodmustang.com]

Aren't some, or most 1967 GT-350s also VIN stamped on the block ?

I don't know the actual percentage but not every 67 GT 350 had a VIN on its block

[Hockeylife]

Aren't some, or most 1967 GT-350s also VIN stamped on the block ?

I don't know the actual percentage but not every 67 GT 350 had a VIN on its block

I've been told, by some of the acknowledged experts here, that when Bret states that not all 67 GT350 had a VIN on the block is true. My question....is why some were not stamped?

[J_Speegle]

I've been told, by some of the acknowledged experts here, that when Bret states that not all 67 GT350 had a VIN on the block is true. My question....is why some were not stamped?

If this did take place then it was most likely a mistake/screwup similar to the misstamping of the unibody engine code on some 67's. Of course if it was more than one or two there would likely be a identifiable pattern so that someone outside of that "range" could not assume their engine got through without a stamp