1969 BOSS 302 GT 350 Prototype

[FL SAAC]

VIN  #  9F02G482244

Information pulled from current Ebay add

[FL SAAC]

VIN  #  9F02G482244

Information pulled from current Ebay add

[Coralsnake]

This car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive  a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."

Ford stated that the number ending in "44" was an in-house code for project cars

When Shelby cut ties with Ford, any program with his name on it went with him, so the Shelby / BOSS program was canceled, leaving this car abandoned at Ford. Ford intended to build 200 of the Boss GT 350s for the 1970 model year.

When I see information like this without any documents, it raises red flags.

[crossboss]

This car was not invoiced under the VIN 9F02G482244 and was not intended to be sold. An executive design engineer that worked on the 1968 and 1969 Shelby design line was able to apply for an invoice under VIN 9F02G582244 from Ford Motor Company. Only then could he receive  a title from Ray Whitfield Ford in Livonia, Michigan. This was to keep the car under Ford's radar so it did not show up as a 1969 Shelby. The car was then purchased from Ford under the VIN of 9F02G582244 for $1,750.00 and was titled for fifteen years in that family's name under VIN G582244. When resold, the second owner had the number changed back to its original VIN as "48."

Ford stated that the number ending in "44" was an in-house code for project cars

When Shelby cut ties with Ford, any program with his name on it went with him, so the Shelby / BOSS program was canceled, leaving this car abandoned at Ford. Ford intended to build 200 of the Boss GT 350s for the 1970 model year.

When I see information like this without any documents, it raises red flags.

Partially true. When we interviewed Shelby in 1990/91 he made a statement "I was finally impressed that Ford made engines that I liked: the Boss 302 and Boss 429. I wanted to use them in my 1969 GT-350's and GT-500's. However, Ford's bean counters said no because of the costs"

[crossboss]

Boys,
Disagree all you want, Its all about the numbers. The VIN clearly says "G" AND "48".

[Coralsnake]

Is it? I can show you several GT500 KRs that have "01" body serial codes on their windshield tags.

Are they coupes?  They are not.

The history and what actually happened is what is important. Is it unique? Yes it is unique.

Was it built as a Shelby? No it was not.

The paperwork proves that and there is a reason its not being shown.

Heres another example:Shelby had several 351 Cleveland cars. They do not have special engine codes. Does that mean they did not exist?

Or what if a car shows up with one of the unused 1969 Shelby Vins? Its not a Shelby, even though "the numbers" say it is. Its about the history, not the numbers

[Bill]

Wasn't it reported on SAACforum 1.0 that the build sheet actually states "not a shelby", or "not a shelby unit"? I remember something along those lines in the deep, dark recesses of my ever aging mind, but cannot remember with 100% certainty.


Bill

[Coralsnake]

 

[Special Ed]

I wonder what numbers were stamped on top shock towers under fender.

[Coralsnake]

"9F02G482244"   I have a photo

[427hunter]

Boys,
Disagree all you want, Its all about the numbers. The VIN clearly says "G" AND "48".

I agree 100% - the intent of the production was clear, the fact it was never completed is irrelevant.

[FL SAAC]

That's what he said also

48 = identifies all Shelbys not used for any other Ford vehicles

VIN  #  9F02G482244

I have a question about this Car:

Since the 48 in the VIN denotes a SHELBY Mustang 

The "G" in the VIN just denotes an Engine

That specific "G" code was only designated to "BOSS 302" Mustangs

Wouldn't it be correct to say that it is MORE Shelby than BOSS

Therefore it is the only Shelby with a Boss 302 Engine installed from the Factory?

I understand that it may not have had ALL the fiberglass parts day one.

But it was a development car, unfortunately the money or program ended and it never reached its maturity.

Wish I had it

[Coralsnake]

So if the factory Ford paperwork says its not a Shelby, what was the "intention" ??

There could be several reasons Shelbys Engineers would want a "big suspension" car in their inventory. It might not be just about the motor.

[Bill]

I think these two pictures, as with other cars with questionable history, showing the car with it's original bodywork, before the quarters were replaced, tell the real tale.




Bill

[Coralsnake]

Those rear quarters and taillight panel must have been changed in this photo? Seems odd.

We have barely mentioned the AOSmith records show no such conversion happened on this VIN.

Again, I am not bashing the car. Just asking for evidence to the contrary and asking for a chance to correct my statements if they are false.

I ask the "numbers" guys why does it have a 1970 painted hood and front spoiler?