’67 Rear Valance Exhaust Flat-Style Trim – Who’s Got ‘Em?

[Richstang]

From SAAC I received my DSO 84-2571 with a "DATE 1/30/67", a "DECENT. DATE 1/30" and a "SCHED. DATE 2/6".

It's in the order of 280 steel wheel cars.

Can't seem to correlate the dates with what's said in the link.

Were going off track here from the rear valence issue, but let's take a quick look as it relates to the dates. It took some time between the written change notice and when it was implemented.

I'm not clear on what the "DECENT DATE" is, but it's close to the date that the car would have been serialized (noted as 1/31 on a few Marti reports for DSO 84-2571). Your "SCHED DATE is not as close to what these few Marti reports show for the scheduled date of 2/22. The actual build date varies (3/16, 3/21, & 3/22) Per the registry, also Simkins Data file, the Ford build dates vary from as early as 2/16 to as late as 3/29. This was the largest DSO order at 280 cars (not all were noted as steel wheel cars, but it was the largest group of them in a DSO at 162 units with hubcaps).

Brian has this DSO 2571 listed in his December "Observations"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/shelbyresearch/hmltZpz4Rdg

[Bossbill]

From that referenced doc:
"Starting with DSO 2571 (typed 12/14/1966 & rec'd 12/28/66), the DSO Item Numbers were now typed on the order forms whereas they were previously handwritten. The Item Number sequence seems to have "reset" to 1513 and became "ascending" as DSO numbrs continued to ascend."

I can't correlate any of the typed or received dates with my copy of DSO 84-2571 (my prev post).

The reason this matters is that my car has a GT valance, it's date coded to within all the other sheet metal on the car, has the rotation number on it, is the original color, and is galvanized/red oxide under the original paint and the car has a build date before 3/22/67.

[Richstang]

From that referenced doc:
"Starting with DSO 2571 (typed 12/14/1966 & rec'd 12/28/66), the DSO Item Numbers were now typed on the order forms whereas they were previously handwritten. The Item Number sequence seems to have "reset" to 1513 and became "ascending" as DSO numbrs continued to ascend."

I can't correlate any of the typed or received dates with my copy of DSO 84-2571 (my prev post).

The reason this matters is that my car has a GT valance, it's date coded to within all the other sheet metal on the car, has the rotation number on it, is the original color, and is galvanized/red oxide under the original paint and the car has a build date before 3/22/67.

Thank You Bill,

This helps me understand what you mean. It is relevant! Brian states the change notice with the GT valance part was written on Jan 25th.
Your '67 Mustang GT rear valance dated prior to your car's 3/02/67 SJ completion date supports what Bob and Dennis have said (more cars with the GT valance / less with the 66 trim and cutout).

I'm not a part of Brian's Google group, but do have his email. I'll send him a note, reference this thread, and see what he had to say. It does seem like the DSO 84-2580 is a bit too late and there are earlier DSO's with the added '67 GT valance. On DSO 84-2571 the earliest SJ completion date is 2/16/67 that's almost 6 weeks earlier than the 3/30/67 earliest completion date on DSO 84-2580. We're talking about a difference of at least 400 hundred cars.
(I will correct my estimated numbers in the first reply as soon as I can get this sorted out.)





 

[Richstang]

Brian responded quickly to my email. He was very receptive to the discussion here questioning the staring point date of the '67 GT valance. The change notice is stamped as received on January 25th 1967 with the part number clearly noted. The DSO listed at the top of the form is a little difficult to read (from the Ford microfilm) and an error was made. He is removing the DSO-2580 as the starting point for the change over in his January "Observations".

Clearly the '67 GT valance was used on Shelby base units prior to the 3/30/67 date I noted previously. This negates my earlier unit estimates for each of the rear valance versions. I have updated those posts, striking out that text, and noting it as invalid. I apologize for that. We still don't know the exact date when the changeover occurred. Based on past conversations from the old forum it was thought to be around the end of February / early March.

[Bossbill]

I really appreciate the way you guys went about gathering facts, correcting as needed and then coming to a slightly different conclusion on an admittedly difficult topic.
And with 50 year old data on fiche!

You guys rock.

[Richstang]

I recently read a post started by "BossBill" on the Concours Mustang Forum. The thread answers the question I was asking myself. "When did the stamped GT valance first go into production on the '67 Mustang?" Jeff Speegle replied from Job #1. Bob Gaines also mentioned turn downs instead of twin tips possibly on early built Mustangs.
see link attached;  http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=18242.0


That got me very curious about the exhaust turn downs on GT models. Digging through my old book "Mustang Does It" I found an excerpt that states the GT appearance option was available on all four V8 models in 1967. (This includes the "A", "C", "K", and "S" code engines) It continued to note only the larger "K" and S" codes engines had the twin tip dual exhaust with the stamped GT valance. That means the "A" and "C" codes had the turndowns and a standard valance. A quick search on the internet showed the same information on the first site I opened.

Since the GT stamped panel could be found from the start of Mustang production they could be matched up to any Shelby by SJ completion dates. It also means that despite the extra work required, Shelby actually wanted the standard panel instead of the stamped GT part (so they could custom fit the cutout to match their added larger single exhaust tips). The change order to start using the stamped GT part was likely implemented by Geddes as another time and cost saving detail.

This doesn't help answer the question when they started using the GT stamped valance, but if the change notice was "received" by Ford on Jan 25th, Ford could have implemented this request immediately on the next DSO (or possibly even during fulfillment of a DSO already in process).

[J_Speegle]

That got me very curious about the exhaust turn downs on GT models. Digging through my old book "Mustang Does It" I found an excerpt that states the GT appearance option was available on all four V8 models in 1967. (This includes the "A", "C", "K", and "S" code engines) It continued to note only the larger "K" and S" codes engines had the twin tip dual exhaust with the stamped GT valance. That means the "A" and "C" codes had the turndowns and a standard valance. A quick search on the internet showed the same information on the first site I opened.

For the Mustang the cars that came with single exhaust and were GT's, those rear exhaust pipes have a turn down formed into the tail pipe rather than them having a turn down that is attached to the tail pipe like used for dual exhaust cars that were non-GT's

So basically it was

A & C code with and without the GT package. = standard valance and turned down exhaust
K & S code without the GT package = standard valance and turned down exhaust tips
K & S code with the GT package = GT rear valance and dual exhaust tips through the openings

[Bossbill]

Didn't all 67 K code Mustangs (not incl Shelbys) have to be GTs?

[J_Speegle]

Didn't all 67 K code Mustangs (not incl Shelbys) have to be GTs?

Guess only Kevin Marti could confirm one was or another but do have pictures of 67 K codes that appear not to be GT's and I can't see where an owner would remove that package and make a plain non-GT out of a car if it had been one originally. Lots of work for no benefit as these were no restored cars just a driver.   Should also be noted that the same (all S code 67 were GTs) was a fairly common belief in the past and that has been disproved

[Richstang]

I found a Marti report for an "A" code 289 4v with the GT appearance package and also a "S" code 390 4v without a GT package.

Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package and a "K" code without a GT package.

[67_1183]

Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package

If still looking, I have several.  Send PM with email address and I will send some.

[Richstang]

Still looking for a "C" code with the GT package

If still looking, I have several.  Send PM with email address and I will send some.

Thanks Jeff,

I found a Marti Report for a "C" code Mustang with the GT package during lunchtime today.

Also found a photo of an "A" code GT that had a standard valance. Most of the "A" and "C" code Mustangs I have seen all have the GT Stamped valance, but those were restored cars so who knows what was originally on them.

Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.

[J_Speegle]

Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.

Would not expect you or I to find one since the number of these possible cars may have been only a handful - guess would be 10 or less. And would expect that many have been by now, built as a GT by some prior owner assuming that by adding  the option would make it more valuable not realizing the rarity of what they had.

Guess I could send in for the Marti report for the car I have the pictures of.  Hmmm

[Richstang]

Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.

Would not expect you or I to find one since the number of these possible cars may have been only a handful - guess would be 10 or less. And would expect that many have been by now, built as a GT by some prior owner assuming that by adding  the option would make it more valuable not realizing the rarity of what they had.

Guess I could send in for the Marti report for the car I have the pictures of.  Hmmm

I didn't think I'd find one, (knowing the numbers would be very small) but definitely worth looking for.

Today I came across an article or two noting the "K" code required the GT package. That Conflicts with the info we've noted previously.
(Perhaps this was a running change by Ford?)

If your able to get a Marti for the one you know of, it would be very interesting to see the build date and numbers.

[67_1183]

Still no sign of a Marti for a "K"" code without the GT package.

I found one for a Shelby TA car.  Vehicle Order Image shows A code, but the rest of the Marti is K code, non GT.  Special case.

7R01K21xx06