The 5 1967 shelby gt500 with 427

[JD]

Saw Capt' Rick and his car '67 GT500 #328 at SAAC 40 - Pocono Aug., 2015, took a number of photos of his car and talked a few times over the event and afterwards.

Haven't heard from him in a while - HI Rick!  (hope you're doing well)

Here is a photo of his car at, the closed for years, Bridgehampton race course that he posted on the "Crashed" SAAC Forum 1...

[2112]

Love the way he has his car suspended and tired.

I don't think he was claiming a factory install but, IIRC, he said the first owner had the 427 installed early, but after initial purchase.

Anyone check to see if he is registered here now? I only found Captain Kid when I looked.

[shelbydoug]

Love the way he has his car suspended and tired.

I don't think he was claiming a factory install but, IIRC, he said the first owner had the 427 installed early, but after initial purchase.

Anyone check to see if he is registered here now? I only found Captain Kid when I looked.

In my personal discussion with him at Pocono, he WAS saying that "the car came this way".

I talked to one person who was trying to buy it for 250 who was convinced it was factory.  At that time, 2010ish, that was not a large enough offer to get it.

I would suspect by Rick's absence that there is a new owner but no one seems to know for sure.

Ask the 67 Registrar if he has new ownership reported to him.

Here's the thing though. There are still a lot of "enthusiasts" who feel, "bah, humbug" about the SAAC Registry and it's nobody's business what I own. That the Registry is just a kind of bragging thing.

As a result, some never report any ownership information to the "Registry" and never will.



At some point, the car will re-immurge. It is a really nice car with it's own unique history.



You know, this undiscoverd 67 427 thing strikes me as just another conspiracy theory that people in the US in particular are so willing to believe, in that SAAC is lying for it's own benefit and that there are other "secret 427's out there"?

The SAAC Cobra Registrar here can attest to some of that with it's own unique spin?


Even when you have ALL of the factory invoices and put them on the table for all to see, people immediately will say, they have been altered to hide the facts? Is this some kind of a virus that we are ignoring that has this dementia type of effect or is that another conspiracy theory?

[GT350DAVE]

Rick still owns his car. It is not a factory 427 car.
Dave

[FL SAAC]

correct

Rick still owns his car.

[2112]

Again, this is just from memory, but I think he said he had iron Exhaust manifolds.

Either he had 428 heads or shoehorned Fairlane manifolds in there.

[JD]

Again, this is just from memory, but I think he said he had iron Exhaust manifolds.

Either he had 428 heads or shoehorned Fairlane manifolds in there.

Engine shot I have from SAAC 40...

[Special Ed]

Looks like someone moved the shelby tag to document the ford #?

[2112]

Again, this is just from memory, but I think he said he had iron Exhaust manifolds.

Either he had 428 heads or shoehorned Fairlane manifolds in there.

Engine shot I have from SAAC 40...

Well, to my eye, those look like 427 heads. Shoehorning those manifolds in must have bee a labor of love.

[JD]

Looks like someone moved the shelby tag to document the ford #?

...that is were the VIN plate is riveted on that car, does seem a bit off the typical area.

[shelbydoug]

I want to say that I remember having that discussion with him and he said that they were CJ manifolds but I don't know what you do with the bolts on something like a 65-6 427 head which are top and bottom and wouldn't match up to a CJ manifold?

The 427 Manifolds are FAIRLANE manifolds and Perogie told me that they don't fit the Mustang configuration.

Are the 67 427 heads cast like the 428 heads with the provisions of drilling the additional CJ located holes out from the additional cast in bosses? 

Do '68 427 heads have the additional bosses?

Good question. Anyone know? Royce?

[shelbymann1970]

I want to say that I remember having that discussion with him and he said that they were CJ manifolds but I don't know what you do with the bolts on something like a 65-6 427 head which are top and bottom and wouldn't match up to a CJ manifold?

The 427 Manifolds are FAIRLANE manifolds and Perogie told me that they don't fit the Mustang configuration.

Are the 67 427 heads cast like the 428 heads with the provisions of drilling the additional CJ located holes out from the additional cast in bosses? 

Do '68 427 heads have the additional bosses?

Good question. Anyone know? Royce?

Good question. I thought the same thing-could the heads be drilled for the extra holes? Too bad the Ford engineers were not bright enough to design more clearance for the exhausts on FEs 67-70. Gary

[shelbydoug]

I want to say that I remember having that discussion with him and he said that they were CJ manifolds but I don't know what you do with the bolts on something like a 65-6 427 head which are top and bottom and wouldn't match up to a CJ manifold?

The 427 Manifolds are FAIRLANE manifolds and Perogie told me that they don't fit the Mustang configuration.

Are the 67 427 heads cast like the 428 heads with the provisions of drilling the additional CJ located holes out from the additional cast in bosses? 

Do '68 427 heads have the additional bosses?

Good question. Anyone know? Royce?

Good question. I thought the same thing-could the heads be drilled for the extra holes? Too bad the Ford engineers were not bright enough to design more clearance for the exhausts on FEs 67-70. Gary

At some point the FE heads get a boss addition for exhaust bolt relocation. To me it looks like it is on the C7 and later versions of all FE heads?
There is a '67 "R" version of the 427 and of course there is a 68 "W" version.

I had a pair of C7's 428 heads with 7C casting dates. They were drilled for the 8 bolt, top and bottom bolts but the new bosses were on the heads but undrilled.


I don't know of anyone who is "a 67 427 expert" to ask about this but my educated guess would be that the bosses are there on the heads to be drilled so that a GT or CJ exhaust manifolds would fit.

Those are CJ exhaust manifolds on this car. I had that discussion with Rick that day at Pocono. He was saying how nice and quiet the engine was with them.

We didn't talk about the heads and didn't talk about the date codes on the block, heads, cam, etc, which would have identified the production year of the engine.

I didn't notice if it had a C7ZX intake either. Sometimes that's an indication of what heads are on the engine because of the port size differences between the "low riser heads" and the "medium risers".


Maybe Randy has some experience with this subject and will chime in?

[pbf777]

     No, none of the "427" (L.R., M.R., H.R. or T.P.) cylinder heads have the casting bosses present for the other than the earlier 8-bolt vertical bolt pattern.  Now the '68 "W' code hydraulic cam, 427 came with a version of the 14-bolt "GT" casting and was drilled as such, and the "Marine" 427 engines came with the cylinder heads as stated next.

     Starting in 1966 - '67 the "GT" style castings were adopted for other vehicle chassis but not machined as such, with solely the vertical pattern and exhibiting the undrilled bosses provided for the 14-bolt intention.  This cylinder head also often referred to as the "Short-Port" (intake) FE cylinder head.     

     As far as to what exhaust manifolds are present in the photo, I can't see enough to determine positively, but "CJ" manifolds don't have an upper bolt boss as shown, but then perhaps something was added?     

     Scott.

[gt350hr]

   Scott ,
      That SURE looks like an upper bolt on #5 cylinder which is not there on a CJ exhaust manifold. Now an accomplished cast iron welder could easily add bolt provisions, a closer look would show what I'm guessing happened. Doing that would really open up the possibilities. Might be harder than heck to do the lower bolts that way.