Group II Mustang - Race

[Abraham Sapien]

Doe's anyone knows how many GROUP II MUSTANG race cars did Shelby build in 1966?

[Coralsnake]

Yes, the club tracks the cars and knows about them all.

I believe there is also some information on ponysite.de

[Bob Gaines]

Vern Estes acquired a 66 group II car recently that is cool unrestored.

[Coralsnake]

http://www.ponysite.de/66notchbacks.htm

[tesgt350]

Did these have Shelby Tags under the Hood? 

[SFM5S000]

No, there are no tags on the Group I & II notchbacks. There is detailed information on these cars in the SAAC Registry 2011 Edition 1965-1966-1967 pages 1234 to 1250.
Answering the OP's original question of how many 1966 Group II notchbacks were built. 16


Cheers,
~Earl J

[98SVT - was 06GT]

These cars were "Ford Mustangs" not Shelby's. SA was listed as the manufacturer of the GT-350 because he built 100+ of them as 2 seaters to run in BP class for sports cars. There was also a rule in production racing you could not  modify the suspension locations - SA being the manufacturer got around that for Ford also. The Trans American Sedan race series required 4 seaters. Since the fastback was recognized by SCCA as a 2 seater they ran the Coupe as a 4 seater. I imagine there was also a little bit of Ford marketing involved too so they could show that you could buy a cheap Coupe and go racing without the expense of a GT350.
With the recent photos of Ray Wolfe and his Hi Performance Motors sponsored notchback I'd tend to think that was also a SA Group II car as a backdoor build on an employee's personal car - similar to Pike's.
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=12548.msg105054#msg105054
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=25975.15

[Bob Gaines]

These cars were "Ford Mustangs" not Shelby's. SA was listed as the manufacturer of the GT-350 because he built 100+ of them as 2 seaters to run in BP class for sports cars. There was also a rule you could not  modify the suspension - SA being the manufacturer got around that for Ford also. The Trans American Sedan race series required 4 seaters. Since the fastback was recognized by SCCA as a 2 seater they ran the Coupe as a 4 seater. I imagine there was also a little bit of Ford marketing involved too so they could show that you could buy a cheap Coupe and go racing without the expense of a GT350.
With the recent photos of Ray Wolfe and his Hi Performance Motors sponsored notchback I'd tend to think that was also a SA Group II car as a backdoor build on an employee's personal car - similar to Pike's.
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=12548.msg105054#msg105054
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=25975.15

The group II Trans Am cars that Shelby modified also got around the restrictions . They had the same suspension modifications,same engine modifications ,same exhaust, same interior dash ,roll bar, seat modification ,gas tank,electric fuel pumps etc etc. as the GT350 race models . They were virtually identical to the R model GT350. Consequently they cost virtually the same to build. It came across like you were minimizing the Shelby built group II cars by not not mentioning those facts. If that was not the case then excuse me .

[98SVT - was 06GT]

The group II Trans Am cars that Shelby modified also got around the restrictions . They had the same suspension modifications,same engine modifications ,same exhaust, same interior dash ,roll bar, seat modification ,gas tank,electric fuel pumps etc etc. as the GT350 race models . They were virtually identical to the R model GT350. Consequently they cost virtually the same to build. It came across like you were minimizing the Shelby built group II cars by not not mentioning those facts. If that was not the case then excuse me .

I should have been clearer they really didn't get around restrictions they were built for different classes with different rules.
Tried to fix it by adding the suspension mod applied to "production" car class. The GT350 ran in the B Production class for 2 seat sports cars. That class had to use stock suspension mounting locations. By SA being the manufacturer it allowed them to use different "stock" mounting locations. You were limited on engine mods in production classes too - to use Webers or dual quads you'd have to sell at least 100 cars with them.
Group II was a set of Touring car specs penned by the FIA. Your car had to fit into that spec and SCCA used it for AS(edan) or TA - these were "race" car classes based on production 4 seat cars. ASedan was the club series and TransAm was a pro series. Ford submitted their Group II specs using the R Model modifications SA had used.
I didn't want to seem as I was discounting them being built by SA using all the tricks and parts developed for the GT350 including the Klaus Arning (Ford's suspension engineer) lowering of the upper control arms. All the suspension tweaks (and the IRS) were developed at Ford and given to SA to use on the GT350. Arnung knew the lowered arms helped handling and the original stock location was the compromise position for production cars. The 1" drop itself was a compromise being the max drop with stock upper arms before binding the ball joint. Arning knew 1 1/4 was the optimal spot but would require an expensive rework of the upper arms to achieve it. When KarKraft issued the 67 specs the upper arms were modified and they were dropped 1 1/8". The 67 Shelby TransAm cars were built by SA to KarKraft specs. Shelby's 69 cars were built by KarKraft and loaned to Shelby Racing Company. Those cars went to Bud Moore when Shelby's Ford contract ended at the end of the 1970 season.
I don't want to discount anything SA accomplished. They were great at building competitive cars and had a lot of knowledge on detailed race car prep that didn't exist in Detroit (as can easily be seen by Ford telling them to take out SA built engines and install Ford built ones for LeMans - they all failed. The SA built TA tunnel port engine won 4th overall and 1st in class at Daytona. When Ford demanded he not touch the engines he was supplied 8 (?) failed). SA had great seat of the pants racers who could feel what a car needed and develop a fix. But they didn't have a lot time nor the computers and engineers of Ford. That expertise that Ford gave to SA allowed them to built it right the first time and hit the ground as winners. The coil spring Cobra chassis was also a Ford engineering product completely designed by Klaus Arning. As a testament to SA abilities they got a call from Ford that basically said we'd like to win this new TransAm thing. Go get a coupe and prep it for the final race at Riverside next week. Titus did 2 laps in the new car and pronounced it good. He put it on the pole in qualifying and won the 4 hour race giving Ford more points than the Dodge Dart and their first TA championship. That championship was again won by SA & Titus in 67. In 68 Ford had more control. Shelby Racing was a contractor of Ford to run the TA series and no longer had the independence SA enjoyed. After the first couple races they gave SRC Ford assembled engines and said just put them in. They were not allowed to do anything to them. One blew up in the pace lap - the on site Ford engineer accused Titus of over revving it. Titus grabbed the guy and shoved his head in the car so he could see the tattle tale was under 4,000 when the engine went.
The 16 Group II cars were homologated with the R Model parts. The 4 Group I cars SA built to leser Mustang specs - I think they were designated to be Rally cars. https://www.motortrend.com/features/1308-1966-ford-mustang-fia-group-ii-sedan/
Group II FIA paperwork - see page 3.
https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/default/files/car_attachment/1600930201/homologation_form_number_1434_group_2.pdf
Group I FIA paperwork - basically stock K Mustang
https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/default/files/car_attachment/1601083501/homologation_form_number_1330_group_t.pdf

We've been talking Mustangs here. The GT40 program was a different animal. Those Ford engineers took Eric Broadly's Lola and redesigned it how THEY thought a race car should be. It was obviously wrong and SAs racers had to fix the problems Ford had engineered in - by the seat of their pants. I think if Ford had decided to run the Lola with the 289 engines SA almost won LeMans overall with in 1964 it would have been a winner out of the box.

[Vernon Estes]

The Group 2 cars have always sort of been snubbed by people saying "they aren't a Shelby, they are a Mustang".

Yes, they were classified as a Ford Mustang because Ford wanted to win the Trans Am series...but pretty much everyone still considers the cars Shelby products...which is why they are in the registry.

They are such a vastly misunderstood Shelby product. Mechanically identical to an R Model in a different bodystyle, twice as rare, and in some ways more extreme while in other ways less extreme in their modifications.  The entire program for the Group 2 cars was done in house by SAI and specifically Chuck Cantwell from start to finish...ordered by SAI, delivered to SAI, sold by SAI, supported by SAI..... point being, it's technically true that Ford didn't want the cars to appear as Shelbys and be referred to in that manner.....but the only reason Ford had to go out of their way to insist on that is because they WERE Shelby products.

Whatever someone wants to call them is cool, I've just always been bothered (even before owning one) that people are so quick to say "they arent Shelbys". They are. In my opinion, they are more "Shelby" than any Shelby American produced street car made from 1962-67. (insert sound effect of can of worms opening)

Kind regards,
Vern

[68blk500c]

I've had a strong curiosity about Group II cars since first hearing about them, so I appreciate this topic.  Happy to learn any information on these that I can.  Please continue. 

Hey, Vern: any pictures?

[98SVT - was 06GT]

The Group 2 cars have always sort of been snubbed by people saying "they aren't a Shelby, they are a Mustang".

Technically true - they are a 100% built by Shelby American for Ford Motor Company. The new Trans Am series was getting good press and Ford wanted a piece of the action. TA was designed to be a manufacturers series where the car maker earned points not the driver as in SCCA club racing. The specs were developed and Ford basically told Shelby to build and sell the cars. Shelby was not involved in the actual racing at that time. Ford wanted his concentration on LeMans - they had even ordered him to park the Daytona Coupes for 1965. When the last race came around Ford saw the ink the series was getting and how close they were to winning the series they told CS to build a car and enter the last race. He did and it won giving Ford the championship and SA a new race program for 67. The 67 cars for most competitors were built at KarKraft SA was allowed to build their own cars using the KK specs. History shows who built, prepared and raced the car better.
Going back through the historic FIA database can turn up some interesting things. Ford claimed between May 1 and June 15, 1964 they had built 1,000 K code Mustangs with dual quads for Group I. How about the R Model paperwork showing the serial numbers were to begin CSX3001? I guess it also should have been called a T350 since it was homligated as a Touring car not a Grand Touring car.........

[kram350]

Couple of questions:

In 1965 the production four seat Mustang fastback was converted to the two seat GT350, this for meet SCCA B/P racing rules. If you had a '65 Mustang fastback in that same time period and wanted to race in SCCA, what SCCA class if any could you compete in with a '65 fastback?  Somewhere I have seen pictures of a '65 GT350 and '65 fastback Mustang in the same race? Maybe just a regional race that needed to fill out the field?

Also, don't understand why Ford could not use fastback Mustangs in the early Trans Am series, as they were production four seaters? Ford did so in 1969.

[J_Speegle]

Also, don't understand why Ford could not use fastback Mustangs in the early Trans Am series, as they were production four seaters?........

Weight?

[Bob Gaines]

Couple of questions:

In 1965 the production four seat Mustang fastback was converted to the two seat GT350, this for meet SCCA B/P racing rules. If you had a '65 Mustang fastback in that same time period and wanted to race in SCCA, what SCCA class if any could you compete in with a '65 fastback?  Somewhere I have seen pictures of a '65 GT350 and '65 fastback Mustang in the same race? Maybe just a regional race that needed to fill out the field?

Also, don't understand why Ford could not use fastback Mustangs in the early Trans Am series, as they were production four seaters? Ford did so in 1969.

It was a rules thing. At the beginning of the TA class introduction the coupe had to be used because the fastback was already being used as a 2 seater for B production . The fastback was ether a 2 seater or 4 but not both. Consequently the coupe was listed as a 4 seater for the Trans Am class .This rule held for 67 and 68 . In 69 the regulations changed allowing the fastback body style to be used.