Big block and smallblock fuelpump difference

[Bob Gaines]

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

No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.

[CharlesTurner]

I have nothing to add other than 'extraordinary' is one word   

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary

[FL SAAC]

+ 1

I have nothing to add other than 'extraordinary' is one word   

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary

[FL SAAC]

I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

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

No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.

[Bob Gaines]

I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

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

No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.

You are misinformed.You might want to do more research on this subject next time. This information is not secret and available to all. You can always  pick up a copy of the 65,66,67 Shelby registry and be more versed on the subject . From the SAAC registry " Upon arrival it was designated a Company car Engineering Proto" on the production order dated 12/7/66". Further more SA factory paperwork referred to it while filling a insurance claim as "Repairs of Engineering 1968 Proto type convertible stolen and returned,April1967" . This is also in the Registry. I would say that is concrete proof that it is NOT a regular production car. If you still want to contend with the facts take it up with the SAAC Registrar Dave Mathews rather then posing more silly scenario's .  Bless your heart.    That is what you like to say in your posts isn't it?

[Coralsnake]

Confucius says, "He who argues with a fool, will always loose"

[FL SAAC]

then the green snake with envy chimed in...welcome to the good old boys club

Confucius says, "He who argues with a fool, will always loose"

[Coralsnake]

then the green snake with envy chimed in...welcome to the good old boys club

Not all cars sent to Shelby were "Shelbys" or received Shelby serial numbers.

I am not sure why you want to start name calling... I might suggest...you stick to what you are good at:  posting about other people's car shows, posts of affirmation and taking pictures from the internet.

[FL SAAC]

Mr Gaines with all due respect;


It is my understanding that Mr Styles wrote the footnotes for 0139 in that registry, and what he was told by you an others back in 2010 is far, far from what is factually known today....


After all, if we took things printed years ago as fact, then I guess we'd all still believe that your car, #0001, was the "first '67 G.T. 350." That is your quote from a 2013 Mustang Monthly article, isn't it?


Yes, 0139's Production Order appears to be labeled "Co Car - Engineering Proto". So was #0131's. So what? We all know that both cars have a completed date of 12/7/66, and they'd both share the same deck lid and end caps. We also know that #0131 wore '67 styled fiberglass. Why is it so unimaginable for you to believe both cars ordered at same time and finished at same time were completed differently? Once again, your position is the one that requires extraordinary proof.


Regarding #0139's April 1967 theft invoice: Now you're talking about the second part of the car's life at Shelby (circa April 1967) -- after the car was upgraded with 68-styled fiberglass to serve as an advertising car. #0463 (the Acapulco Blue advertising fastback), #0131 (Little Red) and #0100 (the first GT500) were all updated with '68 styled fiberglass before they were sold to the public. Despite the term 'proto' used on a couple documents that refers to #0463 and #0139 these cars are far from actual prototypes ... unless you just down't understand what that word means.

Thank you

I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.

Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.

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

No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.

You are misinformed.You might want to do more research on this subject next time. This information is not secret and available to all. You can always  pick up a copy of the 65,66,67 Shelby registry and be more versed on the subject . From the SAAC registry " Upon arrival it was designated a Company car Engineering Proto" on the production order dated 12/7/66". Further more SA factory paperwork referred to it while filling a insurance claim as "Repairs of Engineering 1968 Proto type convertible stolen and returned,April1967" . This is also in the Registry. I would say that is concrete proof that it is NOT a regular production car. If you still want to contend with the facts take it up with the SAAC Registrar Dave Mathews rather then posing more silly scenario's .  Bless your heart.    That is what you like to say in your posts isn't it?

[FL SAAC]

So why do you continue to comment?

Your ignorance needs no comment.

Not all cars sent to Shelby were "Shelbys" or received Shelby serial numbers.

Since you want to start name calling...

Stick to what you are good at posting other people's car shows, posts of affirmation and taking pictures from the internet.

[Coralsnake]

Hey everyone, Tony is going to get his first "real post"

Yeah for Tony, he is finally contributing to the forum!

[FL SAAC]

These where part of this lovely conversation

Hey everyone, Tony is going to get his first "real post"

Yeah for Tony, he is finally contributing to the forum!

[FL SAAC]

Back up for reply # 23

[Coralsnake]

The term prototype is used for cars built before actual production. Sometimes as much as two years before production. Its entirely feasible 139 was solely intended to be a 1968 mule. Brians theory may also be valid. If it is, why build one 1967 convertible, if you know there will not be more? 

There is no doubt #139 was an engineering car. Engineering cars do not follow production rules.

Bobs car is the first serialized 1967 production car.

I refer those interested to page 803 of the 1968/69 Shelby World Registry for a more detailed explanation

[Richstang]

Normally I would not get involved in these arguments when they should really just be discussions. Points and counter points are all that should be mentioned, no name calling is necessary whether you agree or disagree here.

In my opinion the point about any lack of photographs of #0139 in 1967 fiberglass is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as never being built in '67 fiberglass. We don't have any photos of the four (4) '66 GT350 convertibles at LAX by SA in the tons of photos taken by Dave Freidman. The earliest photos I've ever been able to find of those four cars are from many years later. The blue convertible 6s2378, make the first photographic appearance in 1974 with Ken Young at a Shelby car show. Have we ever seen a photo of the Green Hornet pre 1970's? The earliest photo I'm aware of for that car is in the driveway of Mr. Darrow, sometime in 1970 (guessing the year) or later. There's nothing that has been seen publically taken by Shelby or Ford. We also don't have any media photos of the four '66 Shelby's or the Green Hornet. We don't dismiss those cars because of the lack of photographs. #0131 Little Red doesn't show up in photos until the same time as #0139 on July 7, 1967. We've all heard the stories of Little Red being tested with various engine configurations. Where are those photos? What about Cosby taking out Little Red. We've seen pictures from Friedman of Steve McQueen in Cobra along with a few other celebrities. If there are no photos of Cosby driving Little Red does that mean it didn't happen, of course not. I'm afraid all of these photos are likely lost.

We also have to take into consideration that not all the records / photos / etc. were picked up by Rick Kopec and Howard Pardee when they were about to get tossed in the trash decades ago. I hate to think what they missed, but thankful for what they did get. We know there is a letter from June 6, 1966 stating the intentions of three (3) of the four (4) experimental convertibles is to test them for the anticipation of the 1967 1/2 convertible. Surely we can agree there was intention to build a 1967 convertible just from that letter alone. By the early spring of 1967 the growing inventories of the 1967 Fastbacks was out of hand. Ford was not getting paid nearly enough to cover the loans given to Shelby and cover the costs of all those unsold '67 units. It seem logical the 1967 1/2 convertible program was cancelled so all efforts could concentrate on selling the remaining fastbacks in stock. It appears there were no more orders from SA from that point onward.

The current owner (Brian Styles) of #0139 has found quite a bit of documentation that certainly indicates the car was completed in 1967 attire back in December of 1966. I believe #0131 was also completed the same time. Brian's website "1967shelbyconvertible.com" shares a ton of info which is very fascinating about all these documents and details. If nothing else, I think we can all agree it was the only 1967 Shelby "serialized" convertible model.