I found parts and dont know exactly what they are Shelby GT500 1967 + 427 parts

[gt350hr]

  Kent ,
     The '67 GT500 had the C7ZX numbered manifold. That is the only manifold correct for the car. The manifold without the  part number is for the 427 Medium riser engine . In 'this case" the 427 manifold will only seal correctly on the 427MR head it was designed for. Mixing parts between a 427 and a 428 isn't always a good.When Ford engineers developed a particular engine , it was built to that specific list of parts . NO substitution was possible. The engine assembly line was "stocked" with the parts necessary to build the exact specification engine. It was FAR different than a modern machine shop environment. Youtube has some very enlightening period videos from the '60s that show how the engine assembly line ran.
        Randy

[1967 eight barrel]

Randy: I spoke to Art Francis at length about this and to my recollection the '67 Medium Riser with no ford number and the C7ZX were both medium riser port configuration.  If you want to know about about all the port configurations, mis-match, power output I would suggest Jay Brown's book which runs the all on the dyno for comparison.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/1705-book-review-the-great-fe-intake-comparo/

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob I waited for your thoughts, the other valve cover has the round hole I dont have a picture now but will forward it. So why is the intake not right because of the missing number? Had all 67 GT500´s the number on the intake? I´m not 100% sure but I would say this intake was on the GT500 since day 1 from what I know about the history of it.

Kent, the C7ZX is the intake made for the 67 GT500. It is the one used when the engines were assembled at the engine plant. The C7Zx intake is the one considered concours correct for the 67 GT500.  If you want to believe otherwise then that is your prerogative. It just will not be the same opinion that others in the Shelby community have.

[gt350hr]

   Keith what is it specifically that makes you think I don't know?  Send it in a PM so as not to dilute this thread any further.
        Randy

[pbf777]

Randy: I spoke to Art Francis at length about this and to my recollection the '67 Medium Riser with no ford number and the C7ZX were both medium riser port configuration.

     I believe as stated by Randy previously, the later F.E. 8V aluminum intake (not L.R.) bare without the C7ZX number is generally attributed to the 427 M.R. as installed in the Fairlanes & Comets. And yes, it would appear that the C7ZX version, is a modified version of the 427 M.R. intake (either the no number or the C7AE version), and was cast with the intent of insuring compatibility for gasket sealing on the taller inlet port versions of the F.E., as the exterior cast perimeter in the vertical dimension, although not an exact sum, averages approximately .100" - .150" greater.   

   

     Please note that the dimensional values stated in my previous post are not fictitious, they are as observed, as I have the three versions that I listed in hand.   

     And again, I have witnessed plenty of examples of "Sidewinders" particularly, but also "Tunnel Wedges", and the no numbered 8V M.R. intake being discussed here, attached to non Medium Riser heads, and also the reverse of the M.R. 427 engine having been slid under the 428 intakes perhaps intended to disguise its' presents, verses the convenience of what one just happen to have, with success. But as Randy and I have stated, just because it can be made to work (perhaps with certain shortcomings) doesn't make it right nor correct.     

     Also, please be aware that I wish that any comments on my part are not perceived as hostile, solely to be of assistance.      


     Scott.

[Kent]

Ok so its right that the Intake with no numbers was used on the 427 fairlane from factory but not on the 67 GT500 with the 428PI, correct?

[1967 eight barrel]

Your manifold is NOT for a 1967 GT500.  They all have the C7ZX, I have an early vehicle, yet it maintains the C7ZX. I have never seen a GT500 less the engineering information on the runner.

As for the Shelby intake being different port wise, it isn't from the same year no-ford engineering number 427 dual quad MR offering.
                                                                      -Keith

[shelbydoug]

Ok so its right that the Intake with no numbers was used on the 427 fairlane from factory but not on the 67 GT500 with the 428PI, correct?

Correct.

[pbf777]

As for the Shelby intake being different port wise, it isn't from the same year no-ford engineering number 427 dual quad MR offering.
                                                                      -Keith

     Please note that the dimensional values stated in my previous post are not fictitious, they are as observed, as I have the three versions that I listed in hand.   

     Scott.

     Umm?   

     Scott.

[GOAT12]

My original 67 Fairlane medium riser intake has casting c7ae-a.

[pbf777]

    I do not recall if there is any significant difference other than the number being present or not in this instance of the "No Number" vs' the C7AE units.

    May I inquire as to your statement of the C7AE unit being "original" to your car, how do you know, and I'm not disputing such, just interested; for example you owned the car since new, or?   

    Scott.

[1967 eight barrel]

Scott, I sold my 427 Fairlane intake. They were both the same dimensionally intake port wise.. There was nothing but the square Ford between the runners, no engineering number, just a firing order.  No Shelbys used the unmarked intake and wouldn't be original to a Shelby. Bob Gaines addressed this before as well.  Not my opinion, but fact. I measured them in with both intakes in hand.

                                                                            -Keith

[Kent]

And in the FE Forum some people say that the 427 Fairlane´s didnt had the number only the fomoco logo.

[shelbydoug]

It's the same manifold. One is just made specifically for the Shelby application.

[1967 eight barrel]

Exactly Doug. The ports were dimensionally the same as well. Agreed. I had one until about two years ago. There isn't a lot of "meat" left at the bottom of the port with the 2.34 tall intake runners when using this manifold on non- med riser port sizes.
                                                                        Keith