1967 Taillight Lenses for GT500 350 which are correct

[Kent]

Does somebody here has some pictures of the correct taillight lenses. I have 6 or 7 sets from what appears to be original nos, the ones in my shelby which also appear correct and some reproductions with FoMoCo logo and numbers. How can I exactly tell which ones are original and which not? Are they really so close in finish and numbers or is there something I´m missing how to divide them?

[Cobrask8]

Shouldn't they resemble the Cougar taillights, but not have the clear end-caps for the license plate? I do not have the part number if it is a special mold for the Shelby's.

If they are the Cougar items, then a 1967 Ford/Cougar part number - C7WY-13450

[JD]

They do have the clear portion to illuminate the license plate even though it's not there.

Wide Black tape (like used to hold the fuel sending unit wire in the trunk) was put over the hole where the light unit for the (Cougar) plate was now not needed.

Added image, the yellow arrow is pointing to the tape that is falling off.

[nctrucks]

Here is some photo's: NOS Assy S7MS-13404-A
I matched the lenses perfectly to the Cougar C7WY-13450-B.

[nctrucks]

More Photo's: I did check the 67 Cougar housing is also a exact match to the 67 Shelby.

[Bob Gaines]

More Photo's: I did check the 67 Cougar housing is also a exact match to the 67 Shelby.

The plug with the red wire was not used on a 67 Shelby. They typically had the green wire . The plugs with green wires were used on both sides.

[nctrucks]

Service replacement?  I have a pair  Dated 12-12-73

[Bob Gaines]

Service replacement?  I have a pair  Dated 12-12-73

Possibly a service part or PO repair using a piece cut from Cougar harness. The one in the picture has a D3 engineering number that indicates at least a 1973 part.  Over the counter service replacements parts are many times found to be different then assemblyline.

[Kent]

I mean the glass sorry maybe I was wrong with my English, but also the housing is interesting. Maybe its good to talk about the whole unit. Was there a change beside the bezel frame which changed in the later production also for housing, glass etc. Thanks.

[J_Speegle]

Service replacement?  I have a pair  Dated 12-12-73

Notice that the wire tag id number reflects a 73 part/engineering number in your picture posted.

Service part/replacement = A part made for Ford by them or a subcontracting company, to sell as a replacement for an original part. Not always designed to look exactly like the original but would serve as a replacement and operate correctly in the intended application

[Bob Gaines]

I mean the glass sorry maybe I was wrong with my English, but also the housing is interesting. Maybe its good to talk about the whole unit. Was there a change beside the bezel frame which changed in the later production also for housing, glass etc. Thanks.

No glass and not a problem because I know you must mean plastic lens. The bezel frame remained the same throughout production.   

[Kent]

but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?

Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?

[Bob Gaines]

but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?

Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?

Sorry ,to clarify the die cast housing that holds the bulbs ,plastic lens and the bezel or trim that surrounds the lens was the same throughout production. The cast aluminum bezel trim had studs to hold the lens on early production and was solid in appearance on the outside . The later production of the same part evolved to use long thin Philips head machine screws that went through holes made into the bezel trim which is seen from the outside. 

[Bob Gaines]

Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?                                           

From the outside the repro plastic lens looks identical to the original . When you turn the lens over and look at the backside you can tell that the lens is made noticeably thicker when compared to a original. Originals had a tendency to develop age cracks seen on the outside surface of the lens over time. By making the lens thicker in that area lessons the chance of that problem happening. It is one of the few examples where the repro part is made better yet look assemblyline correct from the outside compared to the original part.

[JD]

but the bezel frame was different mounted from early to later. Correct?

Does somebody can put some pictures online how to see the glass is correct or repro?

Yes, there were two versions of the cast aluminum trim bezels, early had smooth outer surface and later had the visible stud ends.