Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference

[Bob Gaines]

I had someone recently that was confused over the differences between big block and small block. Many already know this so it is for those reading that don't I am hoping to help.  There is a difference in the fuelpump arm that can be seen in the pictures. The bigblock has the small bump on the arm that the small block doesn't have. This is the same regardless of if button top or later style fuelpump. Neither will work properly if interchanged with each other. I hope this helps.

[s2ms]

Also, if you are thinking about buying one of the older Ford re-manufactured button top pumps, make sure to check the arm style as Bob shows and not  just the Carter number stamped on the mounting flange. Those rebuilders were notorious for throwing a bunch of parts in a bin and not reassembling pumps the same way they came apart. Fairly common to have a small block pump stamped housing with a big block arm. That 4201S pump you think you got a great deal on will be useless with a BB arm.

[6s1640]

If you get a BB pump accidentally for a small block, I expect Flying Fred can fix by swapping out the arm.  Not a major loss, but will cost you some coin to reverse.

Cory

[SNAKEBIT]

Hey, thanks Mr. Gaines, thanks for bringing up this important topic. It was easy to follow and not much to remember, to keep from making a mistake. One question: these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys? I'm gonna say yes?

[Bob Gaines]

Hey, thanks Mr. Gaines, thanks for bringing up this important topic. It was easy to follow and not much to remember, to keep from making a mistake. One question: these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys? I'm gonna say yes?

Those two arms  wher the ones used on Shelby's one style for GT500 (BB)and the other is for GT350 (SB) .

[J_Speegle]

...... these two pumps were the only ones used on the '65-'70 Shelbys?

No that's allot of years and plenty of changes from filter - non filter. rebuildable - non-rebuildable, markings, fitting size ........

[SNAKEBIT]

Oh? Do tell? 

[SNAKEBIT]

Before I joined this website forum to learn about Shelbys, I didn't know that there was an engine size difference between the 350s and the 500s. I thought you could get any optional engine for both of them, like a small block being standard for the 350, but you could get an optional big-block for it. I just mostly know about Mopars and some of their parts. I don't really know about their fuel pumps! Oh, boy.

[1967 eight barrel]

Before I joined this website forum to learn about Shelbys, I didn't know that there was an engine size difference between the 350s and the 500s. I thought you could get any optional engine for both of them, like a small block being standard for the 350, but you could get an optional big-block for it. I just mostly know about Mopars and some of their parts. I don't really know about their fuel pumps! Oh, boy.

Just the beginning...

[SNAKEBIT]

Yep, just the beginning. I really like different parts from the different years of '67, '68, '69-'70. I want a convertible, but the didn't make them in '67. I like the '67's a lot. The 10 spokes are great, but they didn't come on the '69-'70 models. I like the '67 steering wheel the best and the exhaust of the '69-'70 models is the best. What is a guy to do?

[FL SAAC]

i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yep, just the beginning. I really like different parts from the different years of '67, '68, '69-'70. I want a convertible, but the didn't make them in '67. I like the '67's a lot. The 10 spokes are great, but they didn't come on the '69-'70 models. I like the '67 steering wheel the best and the exhaust of the '69-'70 models is the best. What is a guy to do?

[Bob Gaines]

i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yes and maybe   The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that. The million dollar question is whether it was ever built to look like a 67 Shelby . Unfortunately unlike all of the pictures of obscure ,proto type cars like Little Red ,The Green Hornet, etc. there are no pictures of the 67 Shelby convertible in anything but numerous pictures (100's?) pictures of it in 1968 Shelby trim. It is the red 68 convertible on the color dealer brochure . We do know that for a fact .  It was also painted white for other advertising pictures.  It is more then a little strange that if it was meant to be in 67 Shelby trim that there is no picture record of it like other obscure Shelby cars.  Shelby didn't miss a opportunity to photograph just about every unusual or obscure car that they made.  You would think that something as out of the ordinary as a 67 Shelby convertible that there would be pictures of it like so many other Shelby cars . That is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim . The jury is still out on if it was ever in 67 Shelby trim back in the day . The owner wants to believe that it was . I don't blame him. The evidence or the lack of evidence is leaning towards it being the convertible engineering car for 68 production. Maybe some day definitive evidence will confirm that for a short time it was in 67 Shelby trim.  It is a cool and historic car regardless.The current owner chose to first restore it as it was in the 68 Shelby color brochure car trim and then decided later to re restore the car in 67 Shelby trim which it is currently in. Too bad Shelby didn't offer a convertible in the 67 model year because it would have been cool. 

[FL SAAC]

With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

i think they may have made one 1967 convertible

http://1967shelbyconvertible.com

Yes and maybe   The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that. The million dollar question is whether it was ever built to look like a 67 Shelby . Unfortunately unlike all of the pictures of obscure ,proto type cars like Little Red ,The Green Hornet, etc. there are no pictures of the 67 Shelby convertible in anything but numerous pictures (100's?) pictures of it in 1968 Shelby trim. It is the red 68 convertible on the color dealer brochure . We do know that for a fact .  It was also painted white for other advertising pictures.  It is more then a little strange that if it was meant to be in 67 Shelby trim that there is no picture record of it like other obscure Shelby cars.  Shelby didn't miss a opportunity to photograph just about every unusual or obscure car that they made.  You would think that something as out of the ordinary as a 67 Shelby convertible that there would be pictures of it like so many other Shelby cars . That is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim . The jury is still out on if it was ever in 67 Shelby trim back in the day . The owner wants to believe that it was . I don't blame him. The evidence or the lack of evidence is leaning towards it being the convertible engineering car for 68 production. Maybe some day definitive evidence will confirm that for a short time it was in 67 Shelby trim.  It is a cool and historic car regardless.The current owner chose to first restore it as it was in the 68 Shelby color brochure car trim and then decided later to re restore the car in 67 Shelby trim which it is currently in. Too bad Shelby didn't offer a convertible in the 67 model year because it would have been cool.

[Bob Gaines]

With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

No disputing it is one of one. Technically it is a 67 Shelby convertible but since it has only been seen in 1968 trim back in the day raise the question is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim. The need for photos is because there is only photographic evidence is that it was used as a 68 prototype . It has a engineering vin tag which typically means a development car. It is apparent that there are no regular production 67 Shelby convertibles otherwise there would be more. All 67 Shelby vins are accounted for. Since there were no other 67 Shelby convertibles then why a development car for 67 Shelby convertibles ? The logically deduction is that it was a development car for the new for 1968 convertible model which we have proof of the car as such. The lead time involved for development and advertising photo shoot  for the upcoming model year would be a reasonable explanation for using a pre production 1967 chassis. By the time 68 models came out it would be too late.  There were no convertibles built as a 67 Shelby according to SA records found , SAAC Registry and SAAC Registrar until further evidence can be confirmed. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.  That is why a picture or pictures are a reasonable expectation for a extra ordinary claim. Especially since so many other obscure Shelby's and Ford Performance cars photos have survived the test of time. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of others. It is a cool car and I hope definitive proof is forthcoming because it would be of important historical signifigance for the Shelby story. Until then it is a maybe in 67 trim wishful thinking or not.

[FL SAAC]

Good morning,

Great point you make here;

"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars  initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.

Thank you

With all due respect, we both agree as you stated;

"The car is a 67 Shelby and has a vin tag to document that."

So day one in 1967 and today 2019, the legal paper work states it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible.

Today, in what ever state it is legally registered in, it is a 1967 Ford or Shelby convertible model.

Comprehend your stance on the lack of photos. But why are photos needed when you have the subject in front of you, Shelby, topless and a 1967 vin.

I believe it to be one of one. Its evolution (like all Shelbys) went from a 1967 mustang convertible. Then became a 1967 Shelby convertible, that was eventually converted to 1968 Shelby trim.

That's is my opinion.

No disputing it is one of one. Technically it is a 67 Shelby convertible but since it has only been seen in 1968 trim back in the day raise the question is if it ever was in 67 Shelby trim. The need for photos is because there is only photographic evidence is that it was used as a 68 prototype . It has a engineering vin tag which typically means a development car. It is apparent that there are no regular production 67 Shelby convertibles otherwise there would be more. All 67 Shelby vins are accounted for. Since there were no other 67 Shelby convertibles then why a development car for 67 Shelby convertibles ? The logically deduction is that it was a development car for the new for 1968 convertible model which we have proof of the car as such. The lead time involved for development and advertising photo shoot  for the upcoming model year would be a reasonable explanation for using a pre production 1967 chassis. By the time 68 models came out it would be too late.  There were no convertibles built as a 67 Shelby according to SA records found , SAAC Registry and SAAC Registrar until further evidence can be confirmed. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.  That is why a picture or pictures are a reasonable expectation for a extra ordinary claim. Especially since so many other obscure Shelby's and Ford Performance cars photos have survived the test of time. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of others. It is a cool car and I hope definitive proof is forthcoming because it would be of important historical signifigance for the Shelby story. Until then it is a maybe in 67 trim wishful thinking or not.