1969 BOSS 302 GT 350 Prototype

[shelbymann1970]

My dearest and esteemed colleague Gary :

Just want to make sure we are both speaking about the same vehicle

Now on to what is intent?

Having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something

Layman's version of intent :

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck

This is the VIN  #  9F02G482244 on the vehicle

G = Boss 302

48 = only used on Shelby vehicles

Boy if that's not intent and don't know what is

Let's just move on and remember opinions are just like A........pples
Everyone loves A.......apples

Hey who shot J. R.  ?

Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.

Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle

My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one

Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.

one last time and I'll type SLOW for you: Cars that were built at that time that were intended  have Shelby conv pkg on the build sheet. This car has NOT A SHELBY on it's build sheet. So are you still saying the intent was to build it as a Shelby when the build sheet says to the contrary?

[FL SAAC]

Hi Gary

I really appreciate you helping me out by typing slowly its much clearer now.

Well "G" it's now extremely evident....its certainly not (code 48) a Shelby....

Thank you

My dearest and esteemed colleague Gary :

Just want to make sure we are both speaking about the same vehicle

Now on to what is intent?

Having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something

Layman's version of intent :

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck

This is the VIN  #  9F02G482244 on the vehicle

G = Boss 302

48 = only used on Shelby vehicles

Boy if that's not intent and don't know what is

Let's just move on and remember opinions are just like A........pples
Everyone loves A.......apples

Hey who shot J. R.  ?

Viewing the original state of the Shelby Boss and now in it's current state. I personally would have done the same, put the all the Shelby fiberglass on it. I think once this car was conceived the intent was that.

Really can't deny the 48 and the G status on this vehicle

My 3 cents....wish I had more than the 3 cents so I could purchase this one

Tony what I know that you don't know is there was no intent. How do I know that? I have friends who have seen paperwork so there was no intent to build it as a Shelby bodied car.

one last time and I'll type SLOW for you: Cars that were built at that time that were intended  have Shelby conv pkg on the build sheet. This car has NOT A SHELBY on it's build sheet. So are you still saying the intent was to build it as a Shelby when the build sheet says to the contrary?

[shelbymann1970]

This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it's a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.

+1 This S show goes back 15 years. I personally heard him weave his tall tale to me at a Roush open house. The car is fabulous for what it is. It all  started with a  Must monthly article in 2008... Who wrote the article?

[shelbymann1970]

Damn, I "woke" the troll. Sorry troll, the line is now broken. No wonder so many dislike you. you must feed off of it.

[FL SAAC]

Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of restamping anything.

Nor am I but the ORIGINAL paperwork on the car is 58 not 48. Raises my curiosity to the point I would hire a good forensic guy to examine the VIN stampings before I threw down my money.

WHAT ?

I had not heard of this  !

[Bill]

Damn, I "woke" the troll.

If memory serves me correctly, "the troll" was the treason why one of the best threads covering this subject was deleted in a wholesale fashion. Perhaps with his typical over compensation, clearly due to an inferiority complex, the troll wants the same to occur to this thread, and any thread on the same subject. For what reason, we will never know. But at least we know, the more the troll posts, the more he loses.

[shelbymann1970]

Damn, I "woke" the troll.

If memory serves me correctly, "the troll" was the treason why one of the best threads covering this subject was deleted in a wholesale fashion. Perhaps with his typical over compensation, clearly due to an inferiority complex, the troll wants the same to occur to this thread, and any thread on the same subject. For what reason, we will never know. But at least we know, the more the troll posts, the more he loses.

well said.

[FL SAAC]

Well said indeed.

with the statement made of 

"Nor am I but the ORIGINAL paperwork on the car is 58 not 48. Raises my curiosity to the point I would hire a good forensic guy to examine the VIN stampings before I threw down my money."

This opens a legal can of worms with everyone that has been associated with this vehicle.  Past and present.

[Bob Gaines]

When I owned it had 48 in the VIN of the windshield tag and metal stamped into the aprons.The patina of the tag and metal in those areas (pitted) never gave me the thought that they had been modified or replaced.

[427hunter]

This has become nothing more then another saac form s#!t show. I don't get what the problem is, this car is not being represented as original, everyone knows the history and what it looked like before and after. It's a G48 nothing more to say. I think it's a great car and converting it to Shelby trim just made it cooler looking, the car is a great part of Ford/Shelby history.

+1 This S show goes back 15 years. I personally heard him weave his tall tale to me at a Roush open house. The car is fabulous for what it is. It all  started with a  Must monthly article in 2008... Who wrote the article?

Why all the vitriol? The car had/has nothing to do with who owns it.

[68stangcjfb]

I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped  to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?

[427hunter]

I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped  to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?

Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.

The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302. 

[shelbymann1970]

I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped  to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?

Your going to have to explain why you think "it's physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a boss 302" - it is a boss 302 and was built at Dearborn.

The car was never turned into a shelby by A.O. Smith it never went there, it was dressed up like a shelby after it was restored by the owner at that time. The car is coded 48 which means Shelby mustang - but left Dearborn as a boss 302.

You are getting ahead of yourself. You took a partial sentence out of context from 68stangcjfb. go read the RED I noted and it makes sense just the built may6 and released May8th. To me that is the most damning evidence on it. We are all in agreement on what the car is. Unlike most of those here I had seen and gone over this car in 1984. Followed this car through subsequent owners. As a 70 Shelby owner and one who had restored numerous 69-70  Mustangs up until that point and was in the process of restoring  1970 #3052 I pretty much had a handle on what was correct on dash vins and such. I had probably up to that point  owned at least a dozen 69s.

[shelbymann1970]

I think the Marti report tells the tale. The car was built May 6th. It was released May 8th. It was sold to the original owner as a Boss 302 June 16th. It would be physically impossible for it to have been built in Dearborn as a Boss 302 (we all know Shelby's started life as Mustangs at Dearborn, Metuchen & San Jose), shipped  to AO Smith, converted into a Shelby, shipped back to Dearborn, converted back into a Boss 302, then released to the dealer in 2 days. I'm just looking at it logically with the facts that are presented. Am I wrong?

you are spot on. What you will not see from the seller is the build sheet. There is a lively 15 year old conversation on this car on the B2 forum(9 pages). I got attacked on it from one guy. What is interesting is a friend of the owner told me he has the build sheet on the car in 2008. The build sheet says "NOT A SHELBY" and those that know Shelby build sheets they say Shelby GT350 or 500 Conv pkg. So why isn't the build sheet shown? We know the owner has it unless he "lost" it.

[Coralsnake]

[Comment edited]

I commend the owner for adding the picture of the build sheet to the auction. It was not originally explained in the auction when the Shelby fiberglass was added.  As we say, its his car and he can do what he wants with it.

I never doubted the tags or stampings on this car based on what I have seen.

I do think the question is answered and the discussion should turn to finding a new home for the car.