1 of 1 1969 G code "48" Shelby VIN Car

[FL SAAC]

Oh, I think the original poster got exactly what he wanted.

He just didn't realize he had stumbled upon an actual story that has been mischaracterized over the years and now the owner can thank him for bringing out all the dirty laundry

I was the original poster my only intent was to share with every one this article that spoke of the 1 of 1 G code Boss 48 designation Shelby.

Others chimed in and voiced their opinions, car is correct or incorrect. I think it's a one of kind vehicle

Every one that knows me know that I have always said, it's yiur car do what makes you happy.

In the end it is what it is G code Boss 48 Shelby

'69 GT350 Shelby - The Boss Shelby - Mustang Monthly
https://www.motortrend.com/features/mump-0803-1969-gt350-shelby-mustang/

[shelbymann1970]

Oh, I think the original poster got exactly what he wanted.

He just didn't realize he had stumbled upon an actual story that has been mischaracterized over the years and now the owner can thank him for bringing out all the dirty laundry

I was the original poster my only intent was to share with every one this article that spoke of the 1 of 1 G code Boss 48 designation Shelby.

Others chimed in and voiced their opinions, car is correct or incorrect. I think it's a one of kind vehicle

Every one that knows me know that I have always said, it's yiur car do what makes you happy.

In the end it is what it is G code Boss 48 Shelby

First off are you aware of the history of Jerry Heasley and SAAC? Second stop the crap with your "G code boss 48 Shelby". It isn't a Shelby. End of story. I'm sure I'll get hammered even replying to you ,Tony, but enough is enough.

[Bill]

First off are you aware of the history of Jerry Heasley and SAAC? Second stop the crap with your "G code boss 48 Shelby". It isn't a Shelby. End of story.

Motortrend dot com is known for their new car reviews, but recently, has been posting/publishing a lot of rehashed articles from sister publications, none of which have been fact checked, nor well written. Sad to think they are doing so because their readership is tanking under the Motortrend banner. Like so many others, they have forgotten what they were all about. As for Jerry, or even Wallace, that too is a sad case of fiction or hype to get an article published, again, without first fact checking. I can remember when journalists used to fact check everything, as they were putting their personal reputations on the line. I see the anger and frustration it creates for those who get caught up in the actual fact checking, after they too put their personal reputations on the line by reposting such drivvle.

Bill

[Coralsnake]

Im going to ask this thread not devolve into the last thread.

The thread is specifically about the car. If you are not on the thread, please feel free to use the private message option

[tesgt350]

Im going to ask this thread not devolve into the last thread.

The thread is specifically about the car. If you are not on the thread, please feel free to use the private message option

I have a question about this Car:  Since the 48 in the VIN denotes a SHELBY Mustang  and the "G" in the VIN just denotes an Engine, wouldn't it be correct to say that it is MORE Shelby than BOSS and therefore it is a Shelby with a Boss Engine installed from the Factory?  In 1969, there were 7 different Engine Codes used in the VIN (200, 302, 351W, 351C, 428, 302Boss, 429 Boss).

[Coralsnake]

If it was never built as a Shelby and the build sheet specifically says "not a Shelby"

Im going to say its not a Shelby. Thats my opinion based on Ford documentation.

If you had a 6 cylinder car with a Boss 429 engine code its not a Boss 429.

[TOBKOB]

All "48" designated mustangs were built as a Mach 1 less some specific parts then shipped to A.O. Smith to be converted to a Shelby. If it wasn't shipped to Smith and converted to a Shelby it is not a Shelby...does this make sense???      

TOB

[Coralsnake]

Apparently not "all" were shipped to AOSmith. This is the exception to that "rule"

[shelbymann1970]

Im going to ask this thread not devolve into the last thread.

The thread is specifically about the car. If you are not on the thread, please feel free to use the private message option

I have a question about this Car:  Since the 48 in the VIN denotes a SHELBY Mustang  and the "G" in the VIN just denotes an Engine, wouldn't it be correct to say that it is MORE Shelby than BOSS and therefore it is a Shelby with a Boss Engine installed from the Factory?  In 1969, there were 7 different Engine Codes used in the VIN (200, 302, 351W, 351C, 428, 302Boss, 429 Boss).

not to get off thread but no 351C in 1969. There was a H code 351 and a M code 351. There was also a 390 used among others. 10 "different" engines available in 1969 from my data. I guess I'd like to know what did the invoice or window sticker say when the car was bought off the Ford employee lot? I'm betting the OO didn't pay price wise for a "Shelby" nor did the window sticker or invoice say Shelby on it.

[tesgt350]

All "48" designated mustangs were built as a Mach 1 less some specific parts then shipped to A.O. Smith to be converted to a Shelby. If it wasn't shipped to Smith and converted to a Shelby it is not a Shelby...does this make sense???      

TOB

Yes, thanks for that info.

[shelbymann1970]

All "48" designated mustangs were built as a Mach 1 less some specific parts then shipped to A.O. Smith to be converted to a Shelby. If it wasn't shipped to Smith and converted to a Shelby it is not a Shelby...does this make sense???      

TOB

Convertibles were not built as Mach1s. 76B deluxe interior cars hence no red rubber inserts nor red stripes on seats(some might have gotten them though by accident)

[FL SAAC]

car in question vin # 9F02G482244

69/70 shelby information NVSAAC

http://www.nvsaac.com/Details/69_shelby_info.htm

[Coralsnake]

Thanks, looks they have some pages to correct now!

[FL SAAC]

Thanks, looks they have some pages to correct now!

O. K.

Thank you

[Coralsnake]

I think thats enough, no sense rehashing old ground and critiquing others work.